The Tyranny of The Two Party System — The Big Government Democratic and Republican Parties — Is That All There Is? — Trump Best Odds — ‘We Are Led By Very, Very Stupid People’ — Corrupt Criminal Class — Bought and Paid For — Videos

Posted on December 23, 2015. Filed under: American History, Articles, Blogroll, Books, Business, Comedy, Communications, Congress, Constitution, Corruption, Crime, Crisis, Documentary, Economics, Employment, Family, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, Fraud, Freedom, Friends, government, government spending, history, Illegal, Immigration, Inflation, Islam, Law, Legal, liberty, Life, Links, Literacy, media, Microeconomics, Money, Music, Music, Non-Fiction, People, Philosophy, Photos, Political Correctness, Politics, Presidential Candidates, Radio, Rants, Raves, Strategy, Talk Radio, Taxation, Taxes, Technology, Terrorism, Unemployment, Video, War, Wealth, Welfare, Wisdom, Work, Writing | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Project_1

The Pronk Pops Show Podcasts

Pronk Pops Show 593: December 15, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 592: December 14, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 591: December 11, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 590: December 10, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 589: December 9, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 588: December 7, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 587: December 4, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 586: December 3, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 585: December 2, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 584: December 1, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 583: November 30, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 582: November 25, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 581: November 24, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 580: November 23, 2015  

Pronk Pops Show 579: November 20, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 578: November 19, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 577: November 18, 2015 

Pronk Pops Show 576: November 17, 2015

Pronk Pops Show 575: November 16, 2015  (more…)

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Citizens United Supreme Court Decision Increases Freedom of Speech and Stops Government From Censoring Speech — Videos

Posted on May 22, 2013. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Constitution, Economics, Education, Federal Government, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Strategy, Talk Radio, Unions, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

free_speech

ObamaHypocrisy-big

“If freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

~George Washington

Obama Criticizes Supreme Court in State of the Union Address, Justice Alito Shakes His Head in

The Other IRS Scandal

Campaign Cash: The Independent Fundraising Gold Rush Since Citizens United Ruling

Political Fundraising Post-Citizens United

Bill Moyers Essay: The High Price of ‘Free’ Speech

Are Super PACs Living Up to Supreme Court’s Intentions?

Citizens United (Hillary: the Movie) v. Federal Election Commission

What You Probably Haven’t Heard About Citizens United

What Citizens United Didn’t Say

3 Reasons Not To Sweat The “Citizens United” SCOTUS Ruling

Citizens United and Free Speech

Judge Napolitano on State of the Union Address – Obama Should Apologize to Supreme Court

Is It Just Corporate Free Speech?

Free Speech? Citizens United v FEC Revisited

Obama’s SOTU Citizens United LIE explained

Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission- With Credits

Citizens United vs. FEC: How Did It Happen?

On Anniversary of Citizens United Ruling, Common Cause Calls for Investigation of Scalia and Thomas

Justice Scalia on Citizens United (C-SPAN)

Campaign Finance: Lawyers’ Citizens United v. FEC U.S. Supreme Court Arguments (2009)

Citizens United and the role of the Supreme Court

Obama Alleged IRS Political Targeting Outrageous

Background Articles and Videos

A First Amendment Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Part 1 of 3

A First Amendment Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Part 2 of 3

A First Amendment Analysis of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – Part 3 of 3

Citizens United; Hillary the Movie Trailer

Hillary the Movie Trailer 2

Citizens United and Campaign Finance Reform

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Joanne Freeman–The American Revolution–Yale University–Videos

Posted on June 16, 2012. Filed under: Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Strategy, Tax Policy, Taxes, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

1. Introduction: Freeman’s Top Five Tips for Studying the Revolution 

 

 Professor Freeman offers an introduction to the course, summarizing the readings and discussing the course’s main goals. She also offers five tips for studying the Revolution: 1) Avoid thinking about the Revolution as a story about facts and dates; 2) Remember that words we take for granted today, like “democracy,” had very different meanings; 3) Think of the “Founders” as real people rather than mythic historic figures; 4) Remember that the “Founders” aren’t the only people who count in the Revolution; 5) Remember the importance of historical contingency: that anything could have happened during the Revolution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Is the War Part of the American Revolution?
08:24 – Chapter 2. Reading Materials for the Course
13:45 – Chapter 3. Freeman’s Tips One and Two: Facts and Meanings
22:13 – Chapter 4. Freeman’s Tip Three: The Founders Were Human, Too
31:33 – Chapter 5. Freeman’s Tip Four: The Other Revolutionaries
37:48 – Chapter 6. Freeman’s Tip Five and Conclusion

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

2. Being a British Colonist

Professor Freeman discusses what it meant to be a British colonist in America in the eighteenth century. She explains how American colonists had deep bonds of tradition and culture with Great Britain. She argues that, as British colonists with a strong sense of their British liberties, settlers in America valued their liberties above all else. She also explains that many Americans had a sense of inferiority when they compared their colonial lifestyles to the sophistication of Europe. Professor Freeman discusses the social order in America during the eighteenth century, and suggests that the lack of an entrenched aristocracy made social rank more fluid in America than in Europe. She ends the lecture by suggesting that the great importance that American colonists placed on British liberties and their link with Britain helped pave the way for the Revolution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
02:02 – Chapter 2. Association of Colonists’ Identity to English Monarchy
11:51 – Chapter 3. The British Colonists’ Inferiority Complex
20:34 – Chapter 4. The Fluidity of American Social Order: Gentry Minorities, Prisoners, and Religious Exiles
35:02 – Chapter 5. Salutary Neglect’s Effect on British Liberties in the Colonies and Conclusion 

3. Being a British American

 

Professor Freeman discusses the differences between society in the American colonies and society in Britain in the eighteenth century. She uses examples from colonists’ writings to show that the American colonies differed from British society in three distinct ways: the distinctive character of the people who migrated to the colonies; the distinctive conditions of life in British America; and the nature of British colonial administration.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
02:30 – Chapter 2. From Dr. Hamilton’s Diary: Religiosity, Diversity, and Coloniality
11:56 – Chapter 3. Risk-takers, Landowners, Voters: Life in British America
17:31 – Chapter 4. Door Persuasions and Middling Society
23:33 – Chapter 5. Free Will and Spiritual Equality: The Impact of the Great Awakening
32:13 – Chapter 6. The Power of Colonial Legislatures and the British-American Identity  

4. “Ever at Variance and Foolishly Jealous”: Intercolonial Relations

 

Professor Freeman discusses colonial attempts to unite before the 1760s and the ways in which regional distrust and localism complicated matters. American colonists joined together in union three times before the 1760s. Two of these attempts were inspired by the necessity of self-defense; the third attempt was instigated by the British as a means of asserting British control over the colonies.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
02:52 – Chapter 2. Intercolonial Opinions: Notes from Jefferson, Washington, and Adams
11:44 – Chapter 3. Colony Types, and Differences between New England and Middle Colonies
23:58 – Chapter 4. Education and Social Culture in the Southern Colonies
30:43 – Chapter 5. Dutch Expansion and the English Dominion: The First Two Unions
36:30 – Chapter 6. The French and Indian Threats: The Third Colonial Union  

5. Outraged Colonials: The Stamp Act Crisis 

 

Professor Freeman concludes her discussion (from the previous lecture) of the three early instances in which the American colonies joined together to form a union. She then turns to a discussion of the Stamp Act crisis, and how American colonists found a shared bond through their dissatisfaction with the Stamp Act. Faced with massive national debts incurred by the recent war with France, Prime Minister George Grenville instituted several new taxes to generate revenue for Britain and its empire. The colonists saw these taxes as signaling a change in colonial policy, and thought their liberties and rights as British subjects were being abused. These feelings heightened with the Stamp Act of 1765. Finding a shared cause in their protestations against these new British acts, Americans set the foundation for future collaboration between the colonies.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Albany Congress of 1754
09:32 – Chapter 2. British Budget Post-French and Indian War, and the Sugar Act
22:24 – Chapter 3. Colonial Responses to the Early Acts, and the Stamp Act
30:49 – Chapter 4. Limited Liberties in Virtual Representation and the Stamp Act
36:02 – Chapter 5. Patrick Henry on the Stamp Act and Conclusion

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

This course was recorded in Spring 2010  

6. Resistance or Rebellion? (Or, What the Heck is Happening in Boston?)

 

Professor Freeman discusses the mounting tensions between the colonists and the British in the late 1760s and early 1770s. The Virginia Resolves were published and read throughout the colonies in 1765, and generated discussion about colonial rights and liberties. Colonies began working together to resolve their problems, and formed the Stamp Act Congress in 1765. Meanwhile, Boston was becoming more radicalized and mobs began acting out their frustration with British policies. Colonists began to believe that the British were conspiring to oppress their liberties, a belief that seemed to be confirmed when the British stationed troops in Boston. The mounting tension between the Bostonians and British troops culminated in the violence of the Boston Massacre in March 1770.

00:00 – Chapter 1. The Circulation of the Virginia Resolves
03:47 – Chapter 2. The Stamp Act Congress and Parliamentary Thoughts on the Stamp Act
10:11 – Chapter 3. Mob Protests by the Sons of Liberty
15:41 – Chapter 4. The Repeal of the Stamp Act and the Complications of the Declaratory Act
19:39 – Chapter 5. Reactions to the Townshend Acts and Samuel Adams’s Propaganda
31:48 – Chapter 6. Different Viewpoints on the Boston Massacre

Complete course materials are available at the Open Yale Courses website: http://open.yale.edu/courses

This course was recorded in Spring 2010. 

7. Being a Revolutionary 

Professor Freeman continues her discussion of the Boston Massacre and how it represented a growing sense of alienation between the American colonists and the British authorities. The Americans and British both felt that the colonies were subordinate to Parliament in some way, but differed in their ideas of the exact nature of the imperial relationship. This period saw the formation of non-importation associations to discourage merchants from importing British goods, as well as committees of correspondence to coordinate resistance. One instance of such resistance occurred in December 1773, when Boston radicals who were frustrated with the Tea Act threw shipments of tea into Boston Harbor.

 Professor Freeman continues her discussion of the Boston Massacre and how it represented a growing sense of alienation between the American colonists and the British authorities. The Americans and British both felt that the colonies were subordinate to Parliament in some way, but differed in their ideas of the exact nature of the imperial relationship. This period saw the formation of non-importation associations to discourage merchants from importing British goods, as well as committees of correspondence to coordinate resistance. One instance of such resistance occurred in December 1773, when Boston radicals who were frustrated with the Tea Act threw shipments of tea into Boston Harbor.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Different Conceptions of Colonists’ Relationship to Britain
07:55 – Chapter 2. The Growth of Non-Importation Associations in the Colonies
19:05 – Chapter 3. Taxing as Display of British Supremacy: Parliament’s Reactions
26:34 – Chapter 4. The Impact of the Tea Tax and the Development of Committees of Correspondence
33:50 – Chapter 5. Colonial Interpretation of and Reactions to the Tea Act: The Boston Tea Party
43:09 – Chapter 6. British Dismantling of Colonial Governance and Conclusion  

8. The Logic of Resistance

Professor Freeman lays out the logic of American resistance to British imperial policy during the 1770s. Prime Minister Lord North imposed the Intolerable Acts on Massachusetts to punish the radicals for the Boston Tea Party, and hoped that the act would divide the colonies. Instead, the colonies rallied around Massachusetts because they were worried that the Intolerable Acts set a new threatening precedent in the imperial relationship. In response to this seeming threat, the colonists formed the First Continental Congress in 1774 to determine a joint course of action. The meeting of the First Continental Congress is important for four reasons: it forced the colonists to clarify and define their grievances with Britain; it helped to form ties between the colonies; it served as a training ground for young colonial politicians; and in British eyes, it symbolized a step towards rebellion. The lecture concludes with a look at the importance of historical lessons for the colonists, and how these lessons helped form a “logic of resistance” against the new measures that Parliament was imposing upon the colonies.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Logic of Resistance
03:23 – Chapter 2. North’s Intolerable Acts and Colonial Solidarity
11:28 – Chapter 3. The First Continental Congress
19:14 – Chapter 4. Jefferson’s Dinner Party and the Influence of Enlightenment Thought on the Colonists
27:24 – Chapter 5. Jefferson’s Reflection on Hamilton’s Favorite Hero
35:58 – Chapter 6. The Logic of Colonial Unity from the British Perspective
45:48 – Chapter 7. Edmund Burke’s Warning and Conclusion

9. Who Were the Loyalists?

The lecture first concludes the discussion of the First Continental Congress, which met in 1774. Ultimately, although its delegates represented a range of opinions, the voices of the political radicals in the Congress were the loudest. In October 1774, the Continental Congress passed both the radical Suffolk Resolves and the Declaration and Resolves, which laid out the colonists’ grievances with Parliament. The Congress also sent a petition to the King which warned him that the British Parliament was stripping the American colonists of their rights as English citizens. Given such radical measures, by early 1775, many American colonists were choosing sides in the growing conflict, and many chose to be Loyalists. Professor Freeman concludes her lecture with a discussion of the varied reasons why different Loyalists chose to support the British Crown, and what kinds of people tended to be Loyalists in the American Revolution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Loyalists
01:32 – Chapter 2. Radical Voices in the First Continental Congress: the Grand Council and the Suffolk Resolves
17:23 – Chapter 3. Deliberations over Declaration and Resolves, and the Impact of the Continental Association
27:49 – Chapter 4. Taking Sides: The King’s Friends, or the Loyalists
37:53 – Chapter 5. Loyalist Demographics
44:46 – Chapter 6. Conclusion

10. Common Sense

 
This lecture focuses on the best-selling pamphlet of the American Revolution: Thomas Paine’s Common Sense, discussing Paine’s life and the events that led him to write his pamphlet. Published in January of 1776, it condemned monarchy as a bad form of government, and urged the colonies to declare independence and establish their own form of republican government. Its incendiary language and simple format made it popular throughout the colonies, helping to radicalize many Americans and pushing them to seriously consider the idea of declaring independence from Britain.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Voting on Voting
01:40 – Chapter 2. On Paine’s Burial
05:52 – Chapter 3. Colonial Mindset during the Second Continental Congress
12:28 – Chapter 4. Serendipity and Passion: The Early Life of Thomas Paine
21:53 – Chapter 5. Major Arguments and Rhetorical Styles in Common Sense
33:45 – Chapter 6. Common Sense’s Popularity and Founders’ Reactions
39:16 – Chapter 7. Social Impact of the Pamphlet and Conclusion

 

11. Independence

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses the Declaration of Independence and sets the document in its historical context. The Declaration was not the main focus of the Second Continental Congress, which was largely concerned with organizing the defensive war effort. The Congress had sent King George III the Olive Branch Petition in a last attempt at reconciliation in August 1775, but the King ignored the petition and declared the colonies to be in rebellion. Throughout the colonies, local communities began debating the issue of independence on their own, often at the instruction of their colonial legislatures, and these local declarations of independence contributed to the formal declaration of independence by the Continental Congress in July 1776. Professor Freeman concludes the lecture by describing the decision to have Thomas Jefferson draft the Declaration.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Independence
03:38 – Chapter 2. Organizing for War during the Second Continental Congress
10:46 – Chapter 3. King George III’s Response to the Olive Branch Petition and the Release of Common Sense
18:01 – Chapter 4. The General Populace’s Thoughts on Cries for Independence
28:35 – Chapter 5. Debates on Drafting a Formal Declaration of Independence
39:33 – Chapter 6. Editing the Declaration and Conclusion

12. Civil War

Professor Freeman concludes the discussion of the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration was widely circulated and read aloud throughout the colonies. Professor Freeman argues that by 1775-1776, British and American citizens were operating under different assumptions about how the conflict between them could be resolved. The American colonists began to organize themselves for defensive measures against an aggressive British state. Meanwhile, the British assumed that the rebels were a minority group, and if they could suppress this radical minority through an impressive display of force, the rest of the colonists would submit to their governance again. Spring of 1775 saw the beginnings of military conflict between the British army and colonial militias, with fighting at Lexington, Concord, and Breed’s Hill. As a result, the colonists began to seriously consider the need for independence, and the Continental Congress began the process of organizing a war.

00:00 – Chapter 1. The Editing Process of the Declaration of Independence
04:26 – Chapter 2. Short Cheers for Independence, Looming Plans for War
10:16 – Chapter 3. British Thoughts on Colonial Radicalism and Plans for Display of Force
19:19 – Chapter 4. The Symbolic Battle at Salem
25:07 – Chapter 5. The Conciliatory Resolution and Gunshots at Lexington and Concord
35:23 – Chapter 6. Changing British and Americans Opinions at Breed’s Hill
41:42 – Chapter 7. Congress’s Efforts to Organize War Efforts and Conclusion

 

13. Organizing a War

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses four difficulties that the Continental Congress faced in organizing the colonial war effort: regionalism, localism, the supply shortage that the Continental Army faced in providing for its troops, and the Continental Congress’s inexperience in organizing an army. The lecture concludes with a discussion of a Connecticut newspaper from July 1776.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Organizing a War
02:54 – Chapter 2. Regionalism in Leadership and Military Makeup: The Promotion of George Washington
21:50 – Chapter 3. Localism and Supply Shortages: Issues in Fighting for a National Cause and in Fighting with Proper Equipment
29:31 – Chapter 4. Continental Congress’s Inexperience in Organizing an Army
42:31 – Chapter 5. Snapshot of Early Communication in the States: The Connecticut Courant

14. Heroes and Villains 

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses Benedict Arnold as a case study of the ways in which ideas about regionalism, social rank, and gender – and the realities of the Continental Congress and the Continental Army – played out in this period. Like many Americans during this period, Benedict Arnold thought that he could improve his social rank and reputation in the military, but he was unable to advance due to the Continental Congress’s policy on military promotions. Frustrated and facing mounting personal debts, he decided to aid the British in exchange for a reward. Arnold and his wife Peggy developed a plan for Arnold to smuggle American military plans to the British with the help of a young British soldier named John André. However, André was captured while smuggling Arnold’s papers and the plot quickly unraveled. In the end, Arnold fled; his wife played upon conventional stereotypes of women to avoid punishment; and André was executed but idealized in the process.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Complications within the Continental Congress
06:48 – Chapter 2. Opportunities for Social Mobility in the American Revolution
14:20 – Chapter 3. Benedict Arnold’s Early Frustrating Military Career
23:36 – Chapter 4. Arnold’s Marriage with Peggy Shippen and Plans for Spying
37:39 – Chapter 5. The Unraveling of Arnold’s Plot
44:17 – Chapter 6. An Example out of John Andre and the Fate of the Arnolds

 15. Citizens and Choices: Experiencing the Revolution in New Haven

To show how Americans experienced the war and made difficult choices, Professor Freeman offers a spur-of-the-moment lecture on New Haven during the Revolution, discussing how Yale College students and New Haven townspeople gradually became caught up in the war. Warfare finally came to New Haven in July 1779 when the British army invaded the town. Professor Freeman draws on first-hand accounts to provide a narrative of the invasion of New Haven.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Revolution in New Haven
06:16 – Chapter 2. Yale College as the Seedbed of Political Protest and its Relation with the New Haven Community
17:18 – Chapter 3. Diversity of Colonial Opinions at Yale and the Formation of New Haven Military Units
26:05 – Chapter 4. British Landing in New Haven and Yale’s Call to Arms
41:08 – Chapter 5. The Influence of the Revolution on Citizenship and Leadership in the Common Person

 

16. The Importance of George Washington

This lecture focuses on George Washington and the combined qualities that made him a key figure in Revolutionary America, arguing that the most crucial reason for his success as a national leader was that he proved repeatedly that he could be trusted with power – a vital quality in a nation fearful of the collapse of republican governance at the hands of a tyrant.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Importance of George Washington
03:36 – Chapter 2. The Many Merits of Washington from the Letters of Hamilton and Adams
15:42 – Chapter 3. Ingredients of the Washington Phenomenon: Self-Presentation, Fortune, and the Need for a King
25:07 – Chapter 4. Balancing Solemnity with Humility: Washington as the Reluctant Leader
30:13 – Chapter 5. Washington’s Symbolic Gestures as Commander-in-Chief of a Republican Army
43:08 – Chapter 6. Washington’s Legacy as a Leader

 

17. The Logic of a Campaign (or, How in the World Did We Win?)

In this lecture, Professor Freeman explains the logic behind American and British military strategy during the early phases of the Revolution. First, she discusses the logistic disadvantages of the British during the war: the difficulties shipping men and supplies from more than three thousand miles away; the vast expanse of countryside with no one central target to attack; difficulties in recruiting British soldiers to fight in America; and the fact that the British faced a citizen army comprised of highly motivated soldiers who didn’t act in predictable ways. In addition, the British consistently underestimated the revolutionaries in America, and overestimated Loyalist support. Professor Freeman also discusses the four main phases of the Revolutionary War, differentiated by shifts in British strategy. During the earliest phase of the war, the British thought that a show of military force would quickly lead to reconciliation with the colonists. During the second phase, the British resolved to seize a major city – New York – in the hope that isolating New England from the rest of the colonies would end hostilities. By 1777, the war had entered its third phase, and the British set their sights on seizing Philadelphia and defeating George Washington. This phase ended with the Battle of Saratoga in late 1777.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction
04:14 – Chapter 2. British Disadvantages in the War
10:39 – Chapter 3. British Assumptions of Citizen Armies and Loyalists
18:45 – Chapter 4. The First Phase: British Displays of Force
29:31 – Chapter 5. The Second Phase: Capturing New York
41:42 – Chapter 6. Third Phase: Defeating Washington and the Battle at Saratoga

18. Fighting the Revolution: The Big Picture

Today’s lecture concludes Professor Freeman’s discussion of the four phases of the Revolutionary War. America’s victory at the Battle of Saratoga in 1777 marked the end of the third phase of the war, and led to a turning point in the conflict: France’s decision to recognize American independence and enter into an alliance with the fledging nation. Although the British made one final attempt at reconciliation in 1778 with the Conciliatory Propositions, they were rejected by the Continental Congress. The fourth and final phase of the war lasted from 1779 to 1781, as the British Army focused its attention on the American South. The British seized Charleston and South Carolina, and defeated the Continental Army in a series of battles. But with the help of the French fleet, Washington was able to defeat Cornwallis’s army at the Battle of Yorktown in 1781. Peace negotiations to end the Revolutionary War began in Paris in June of 1782.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Revolution was Not Inevitable
04:46 – Chapter 2. Summary of the First Three Phases of the War
12:13 – Chapter 3. Franklin in Paris and France’s Recognition of America
21:20 – Chapter 4. The British Conciliatory Propositions and their Rejection
25:09 – Chapter 5. The Final Phase: Valley Forge and the American South
39:04 – Chapter 6. The French Impact on the War and Peace Negotiations in Paris
45:08 – Chapter 7. Victory, Independence, and Uncertainty

 

19. War and Society

 

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses the experiences of African Americans, women, and Native Americans during the Revolution, framing her discussion within a larger historical debate over whether or not the Revolution was “radical.” Freeman ultimately concludes that while white American males improved their position in society as a result of the Revolution, women, African Americans, and Native Americans did not benefit in the same ways.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: War and Society
01:53 – Chapter 2. How Radical was the Revolution?
08:52 – Chapter 3. African Americans during the American Revolution: Issues on Fighting and Slavery
24:02 – Chapter 4. The Extent of Inclusion of Women in the Political Community
34:24 – Chapter 5. Native Americans’ Relations with the British and the Americans
41:34 – Chapter 6. Conclusion

 

20. Confederation

This lecture discusses the ongoing political experimentation involved in creating new constitutions for the new American states. Having declared independence from Great Britain, Americans had to determine what kind of government best suited their individual states as well as the nation at large; to many, this was the “whole object” of their revolutionary turmoil. Different people had different ideas about what kind of republican government would work best for their state. Should there be a unicameral or a bicameral legislature? How should political representation be organized and effected? How far should the principle of popular sovereignty be taken?

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Confederation
03:13 – Chapter 2. An Atmosphere of Experimentation with Governance
07:47 – Chapter 3. Congressional Encouragement of New State Constitutions
13:38 – Chapter 4. Adams’s Thoughts on Government: Support for Bicameral Legislature
20:12 – Chapter 5. Core Tenets and Ideas in the State Constitutions
32:30 – Chapter 6. The Development of the Articles of Confederation
41:31 – Chapter 7. Conclusion

21. A Union Without Power

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses the Articles of Confederation. Although they seem hopelessly weak in the long view of history, the Articles made perfect sense as a first stab at a national government by a people who deeply distrusted centralized power – a direct product of their recent experience of the British monarchy. Among the many issues that complicated the drafting of the Articles, three central issues included: how war debts to European nations would be divided among the states; whether western territories should be sold by the national government to pay for those debts; and how large and small states would compromise on representation. When a series of events – like Shays’ Rebellion – highlighted the weaknesses of the Articles, some Americans felt ready to consider a stronger national government.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: A Union Without Power
02:12 – Chapter 2. Representation, Taxation, Western Lands: Debates on the Articles of Confederation
10:03 – Chapter 3. The Immediate Effects of the Articles
17:15 – Chapter 4. Frail Foreign Relations, Weak Congress, Splitting States: Weaknesses in the Confederation in the 1780s
30:40 – Chapter 5. Shays’ Rebellion and Newbough Conspiracy: Their Impacts on Thoughts for a Stronger, National Government
40:02 – Chapter 6. How Can the States be United? Debates on the National Constitution

22. The Road to a Constitutional Convention

In this lecture, Professor Freeman discusses how the new nation moved towards creating a stronger, more centralized national government than the Articles of Confederation. Complications of commerce between individual states – a factor that wasn’t regulated by the Articles – led to a series of interstate gatherings, like the Mount Vernon Conference of March 1785. Some strong nationalists saw these meetings as an ideal opportunity to push towards revising the Articles of Confederation. Professor Freeman ends with a discussion of James Madison’s preparations for the Federal Convention, and the importance of his notes in understanding the process by which delegates drafted a new Constitution.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Road to the Constitutional Convention
06:07 – Chapter 2. Complications of Interstate Commerce and the Mount Vernon Conference
13:11 – Chapter 3. Nationalist Hopes to the Revise the Articles of Confederation
23:29 – Chapter 4. Madison’s Historical Analyses of Republics and the Results of the Annapolis Convention
37:27 – Chapter 5. Madison’s Notes on the Constitutional Convention

 

23. Creating a Constitution

Professor Freeman discusses the national debate over the proposed Constitution, arguing that in many ways, when Americans debated its ratification, they were debating the consequences and meaning of the Revolution. Some feared that a stronger, more centralized government would trample on the rights and liberties that had been won through warfare, pushing the new nation back into tyranny, monarchy, or aristocracy. The Federalist essays represented one particularly ambitious attempt to quash Anti-Federalist criticism of the Constitution. In the end, the Anti-Federalists did have one significant victory, securing a Bill of Rights to be added after the new Constitution had been ratified by the states.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The Constitution was Not Inevitable
08:48 – Chapter 2. State Fears of Monarchy: Attendees of the Constitutional Convention
22:24 – Chapter 3. Initial Plans to Revise the Articles and Madison’s Virginia Plan
29:11 – Chapter 4. The New Jersey Plan and Hamilton’s Praise of British Governance
34:56 – Chapter 5. Debates on State Representation, Slavery, and the Executive Branch
44:44 – Chapter 6. Conclusion

24. Creating a Nation

Professor Freeman discusses the national debate over the proposed Constitution, arguing that in many ways, when Americans debated its ratification, they were debating the consequences and meaning of the Revolution. Some feared that a stronger, more centralized government would trample on the rights and liberties that had been won through warfare, pushing the new nation back into tyranny, monarchy, or aristocracy. The Federalist essays represented one particularly ambitious attempt to quash Anti-Federalist criticism of the Constitution. In the end, the Anti-Federalists did have one significant victory, securing a Bill of Rights to be added after the new Constitution had been ratified by the states.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: Creating a Nation
02:53 – Chapter 2. Difficulties in Ratifying the Constitution: Exchanges between Jefferson and Madison, and Ezra Stiles’s Diary
14:20 – Chapter 3. Debates on Balance of Power between Anti-Federalists and Federalists
22:32 – Chapter 4. In Defense of the Constitution: The Federalist Essays
28:54 – Chapter 5. The Anti-Federalists’ Push for Bill of Rights
36:04 – Chapter 6. General Consensus on Experimenting with Republican Government and Conclusion

 

25. Being an American: The Legacy of the Revolution

Professor Freeman discusses when we can consider a revolution to have ended, arguing that a revolution is finally complete when a new political regime gains general acceptance throughout society – and that, for this reason, it is the American citizenry who truly decided the fate and trajectory of the American Revolution. Yet, in deciding the meaning of the Revolution, the evolving popular memory of its meaning counts as well. Founders like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams frequently told younger Americans not to revere the Revolution and its leaders as demigods, insisting that future generations were just as capable, if not more so, of continuing and improving America’s experiment in government. Professor Freeman concludes the lecture by suggesting that the ultimate lesson of the American Revolution is that America’s experiment in government was supposed to be an ongoing process; that the Revolution taught Americans that their political opinions and actions mattered a great deal – and that they still do.

00:00 – Chapter 1. Introduction: The End of the Revolution
02:21 – Chapter 2. Change and Acceptance of Revolutionary Principles between the 1770s and 1790s
15:00 – Chapter 3. Gauging Change in Public Opinion and Acceptance of New Governance: Eyewitness Accounts
24:29 – Chapter 4. Reconstructing and Remembering the American Revolution: The Founders’ Reflections
39:27 – Chapter 5. Revolution Runs in the People: A Conclusion

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

American History–The Hidden Faith Of The Founding Fathers–Deism and Freemasonry–Video

Posted on June 8, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, European History, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Religion, Science, Technology, Video, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

Our Founding Fathers

“The Founding Fathers were of many different faiths.  Some were Christian and others were Deists.  The fact remains that they created a secular Constitution that respects all religions and guarantees the right not to hold a religious belief.” 

America the Deist Nation

Washington the Freemason (1/2) 

Washington the Freemason (2/2) 

Hidden Faith of the Founding Fathers

“…The real questions are: What did the founders believe about Jesus Christ?  Christianity begins with faith in the Person of Christ Himself: what did the founders think of Him?  What did they think of the Gospel?  Were they fighting for Christianity, or against it?
1) The faith of Thomas Paine — the man who inspired the American Revolution, and the writing of the Declaration of Independence.  This film shows how Paine’s influence over the Revolution was critical, while his anti-Christian writings revealed much of what the other founders truly believed.
2) The faith of Thomas Jefferson — author of the Declaration of Independence.  Jefferson said the Book of Revelation was “the ravings of a maniac” and that the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles were full of “imposture” and “stupidity.”  After his private papers were published, he was called “the reviler of Christ” by a leading clergyman.
3) The faith of Benjamin Franklin — the only man to sign all of the original founding documents.  Franklin was part of a radical occult group known as “The Hellfire Club” in England that took part in satanic rituals, which may have included human sacrifice.  Shortly before he died, he openly stated that he did not believe the Gospel.
4) The faith of John Adams — the second President of the United States.  The evidence shows that Adams was no Christian at all, but rather exalted pagan beliefs about God, while abhorring the Gospel, calling it an “awful blasphemy.”
5) The faith of George Washington — known as “the Father of our country.”  Three of Washington’s own pastors doubted his faith in Christ.  Proof is shown that he went to war, not for Christianity, but for a “universal” system that would embrace all religions.  When compelled by the clergy to confess his faith in Christ, Washington refused.
6) Washington & the Jesuits:  Generally unknown is the role of Rome and the Jesuit Order in the American Revolution.  Powerful historic evidence shows that George Washington worked with Jesuits to prevail against their common enemy, England.  This information is ground-breaking and documented beyond any doubt.
7) Bartonian History: we confront David Barton’s fabled view of American history, giving examples (including his appearance on the Glenn Beck program) of how he misquotes the founders to make it appear as if they supported Christianity, when it is provable that they did not.
8) The Question of Freemasonry: Also included is an expose of David Barton’s book on the role of Freemasonry, contending on key points against his assertion that Masonry played no significant role in the founding of the country.
9) Biblical World View: Confronts the idea often suggested that the founders were “deists,” or “agnostics” — whereas, according to the Bible, they were antichrists.”

Is America A Christian Nation (In touch Ministries)

David Barton – Liberty University Convocation

America’s Founding Fathers: Deist or Christian? – by David Barton 

 Background Articles and Videos

Deism

Deism FAQ: God and the Natural Universe

Deism: There Is No Hero Coming 

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 1 of 5 

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 2 of 5

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 3 of 5

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 4 of 5

David Barton on Glenn Beck – Part 5of 5

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan Democrats For Ron Paul–Vote For Ron Paul and Restore The Constitution and The Republic!–A Time For Choosing–Videos

Posted on March 6, 2012. Filed under: American History, Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Employment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Inflation, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Raves, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“The value of liberty was thus enhanced in our estimation by the difficulty of it’s attainment. And the worth of characters appreciated by the trial of adversity.”

 ~George Washington

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.”

~Thomas Jefferson

“Of all the enemies of public liberty, war is perhaps the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.”

~James Madison

President Eisenhower – Farewell Warning

John F. Kennedy’s most memorable speech’s highlights+transcript/subtitles

Reagan – A Time For Choosing 

Ron Paul Incredible Video Twice Removed  YouTube

“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.”

~George Washington

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

~Abraham Lincoln

“Mankind must put an end to war, or war will put an end to mankind.”

~John F. Kennedy

Background Articles and Videos

Eisenhower Farewell Address (Full) 

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Farewell Address

delivered 17 January 1961

Good evening, my fellow Americans.

First, I should like to express my gratitude to the radio and television networks for the opportunities they have given me over the years to bring reports and messages to our nation. My special thanks go to them for the opportunity of addressing you this evening.

Three days from now, after half century in the service of our country, I shall lay down the responsibilities of office as, in traditional and solemn ceremony, the authority of the Presidency is vested in my successor. This evening, I come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell, and to share a few final thoughts with you, my countrymen.

Like every other — Like every other citizen, I wish the new President, and all who will labor with him, Godspeed. I pray that the coming years will be blessed with peace and prosperity for all.

Our people expect their President and the Congress to find essential agreement on issues of great moment, the wise resolution of which will better shape the future of the nation. My own relations with the Congress, which began on a remote and tenuous basis when, long ago, a member of the Senate appointed me to West Point, have since ranged to the intimate during the war and immediate post-war period, and finally to the mutually interdependent during these past eight years. In this final relationship, the Congress and the Administration have, on most vital issues, cooperated well, to serve the nation good, rather than mere partisanship, and so have assured that the business of the nation should go forward. So, my official relationship with the Congress ends in a feeling — on my part — of gratitude that we have been able to do so much together.

We now stand ten years past the midpoint of a century that has witnessed four major wars among great nations. Three of these involved our own country. Despite these holocausts, America is today the strongest, the most influential, and most productive nation in the world. Understandably proud of this pre-eminence, we yet realize that America’s leadership and prestige depend, not merely upon our unmatched material progress, riches, and military strength, but on how we use our power in the interests of world peace and human betterment.

Throughout America’s adventure in free government, our basic purposes have been to keep the peace, to foster progress in human achievement, and to enhance liberty, dignity, and integrity among peoples and among nations. To strive for less would be unworthy of a free and religious people. Any failure traceable to arrogance, or our lack of comprehension, or readiness to sacrifice would inflict upon us grievous hurt, both at home and abroad.

Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened by the conflict now engulfing the world. It commands our whole attention, absorbs our very beings. We face a hostile ideology global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insiduous [insidious] in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration. To meet it successfully, there is called for, not so much the emotional and transitory sacrifices of crisis, but rather those which enable us to carry forward steadily, surely, and without complaint the burdens of a prolonged and complex struggle with liberty the stake. Only thus shall we remain, despite every provocation, on our charted course toward permanent peace and human betterment.

Crises there will continue to be. In meeting them, whether foreign or domestic, great or small, there is a recurring temptation to feel that some spectacular and costly action could become the miraculous solution to all current difficulties. A huge increase in newer elements of our defenses; development of unrealistic programs to cure every ill in agriculture; a dramatic expansion in basic and applied research — these and many other possibilities, each possibly promising in itself, may be suggested as the only way to the road we wish to travel.

But each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs, balance between the private and the public economy, balance between the cost and hoped for advantages, balance between the clearly necessary and the comfortably desirable, balance between our essential requirements as a nation and the duties imposed by the nation upon the individual, balance between actions of the moment and the national welfare of the future. Good judgment seeks balance and progress. Lack of it eventually finds imbalance and frustration. The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well, in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise. Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense. We have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security alone more than the net income of all United States cooperations — corporations.

Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence — economic, political, even spiritual — is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society’s future, we — you and I, and our government — must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for our own ease and convenience the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

During the long lane of the history yet to be written, America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect. Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many fast frustrations — past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of disarmament — of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent, I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war, as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years, I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.

So, in this, my last good night to you as your President, I thank you for the many opportunities you have given me for public service in war and in peace. I trust in that — in that — in that service you find some things worthy. As for the rest of it, I know you will find ways to improve performance in the future.

You and I, my fellow citizens, need to be strong in our faith that all nations, under God, will reach the goal of peace with justice. May we be ever unswerving in devotion to principle, confident but humble with power, diligent in pursuit of the Nations’ great goals.

To all the peoples of the world, I once more give expression to America’s prayerful and continuing aspiration: We pray that peoples of all faiths, all races, all nations, may have their great human needs satisfied; that those now denied opportunity shall come to enjoy it to the full; that all who yearn for freedom may experience its few spiritual blessings. Those who have freedom will understand, also, its heavy responsibility; that all who are insensitive to the needs of others will learn charity; and that the sources — scourges of poverty, disease, and ignorance will be made [to] disappear from the earth; and that in the goodness of time, all peoples will come to live together in a peace guaranteed by the binding force of mutual respect and love.

Now, on Friday noon, I am to become a private citizen. I am proud to do so. I look forward to it.

Thank you, and good night.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

The Entire John F Kennedy ‘Secret Society’ Speech Uncut with Subtitles and Transcript

John F. Kennedy

Address to the American Newspaper Publishers

delivered 27 April 1961, Waldorf Astoria Hotel, New York

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight. You bear heavy responsibilities these days and a article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx. We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of five dollars per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the “lousiest petty bourgeois cheating.”

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath to the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution, and the Cold War.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had — had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I — I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal from a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as a title of my remarks tonight “The President and the Press.” Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded “The President Versus the Press.” But those are not my sentiments tonight. It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called “one party press.” On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20 million Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent, and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family. If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm. On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses which they once did. It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one’s golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one — of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future — for reducing this threat or living with it — there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security — a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President — two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

The very word “secrecy” is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it’s in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes, or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask — But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country’s peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort, based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In times of “clear and present danger,” the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public’s need for national security.

Today no war has been declared, and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of “clear and present danger,” then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions — by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence — on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security — and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation’s foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery, or espionage; that details of this nation’s covert preparations to counter the enemy’s covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible, and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

That question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said — and your newspapers have constantly said — that these are times that appeal to every citizen’s sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: “Is it news?” All I suggest is that you add the question: “Is it in the interest of national security?” And I hope that every group in America — unions and businessmen and public officials at every level — will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests. And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation — an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people — to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well — the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support an Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers — I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: “An error doesn’t not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it.” We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed — and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment — the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply “give the public what it wants” — but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate, and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news — for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security — and we intend to do it.

It was early in the 17th Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder, and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world’s efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press — to the recorder of man’s deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news — that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfknewspaperpublishers.htm

“A Time for Choosing” by Ronald Reagan 

Ronald Reagan

A Time for Choosing (aka “The Speech”)

Air date 27 October 1964, Los Angeles, CA

Program Announcer: Ladies and gentlemen, we take pride in presenting a thoughtful address by Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan:

Reagan: Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you and good evening. The sponsor has been identified, but unlike most television programs, the performer hasn’t been provided with a script. As a matter of fact, I have been permitted to choose my own words and discuss my own ideas regarding the choice that we face in the next few weeks.

I have spent most of my life as a Democrat. I recently have seen fit to follow another course. I believe that the issues confronting us cross party lines. Now, one side in this campaign has been telling us that the issues of this election are the maintenance of peace and prosperity. The line has been used, “We’ve never had it so good.”

But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn’t something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in. We haven’t balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We’ve raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations of the world. We have 15 billion dollars in gold in our treasury; we don’t own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are 27.3 billion dollars. And we’ve just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value.

As for the peace that we would preserve, I wonder who among us would like to approach the wife or mother whose husband or son has died in South Vietnam and ask them if they think this is a peace that should be maintained indefinitely. Do they mean peace, or do they mean we just want to be left in peace? There can be no real peace while one American is dying some place in the world for the rest of us. We’re at war with the most dangerous enemy that has ever faced mankind in his long climb from the swamp to the stars, and it’s been said if we lose that war, and in so doing lose this way of freedom of ours, history will record with the greatest astonishment that those who had the most to lose did the least to prevent its happening. Well I think it’s time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that were intended for us by the Founding Fathers.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told increasingly we have to choose between a left or right. Well I’d like to suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There’s only an up or down: [up] man’s old — old-aged dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order, or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. And regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.

In this vote-harvesting time, they use terms like the “Great Society,” or as we were told a few days ago by the President, we must accept a greater government activity in the affairs of the people. But they’ve been a little more explicit in the past and among themselves; and all of the things I now will quote have appeared in print. These are not Republican accusations. For example, they have voices that say, “The cold war will end through our acceptance of a not undemocratic socialism.” Another voice says, “The profit motive has become outmoded. It must be replaced by the incentives of the welfare state.” Or, “Our traditional system of individual freedom is incapable of solving the complex problems of the 20th century.” Senator Fulbright has said at Stanford University that the Constitution is outmoded. He referred to the President as “our moral teacher and our leader,” and he says he is “hobbled in his task by the restrictions of power imposed on him by this antiquated document.” He must “be freed,” so that he “can do for us” what he knows “is best.” And Senator Clark of Pennsylvania, another articulate spokesman, defines liberalism as “meeting the material needs of the masses through the full power of centralized government.”

Well, I, for one, resent it when a representative of the people refers to you and me, the free men and women of this country, as “the masses.” This is a term we haven’t applied to ourselves in America. But beyond that, “the full power of centralized government” — this was the very thing the Founding Fathers sought to minimize. They knew that governments don’t control things. A government can’t control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.

Now, we have no better example of this than government’s involvement in the farm economy over the last 30 years. Since 1955, the cost of this program has nearly doubled. One-fourth of farming in America is responsible for 85% of the farm surplus. Three-fourths of farming is out on the free market and has known a 21% increase in the per capita consumption of all its produce. You see, that one-fourth of farming — that’s regulated and controlled by the federal government. In the last three years we’ve spent 43 dollars in the feed grain program for every dollar bushel of corn we don’t grow.

Senator Humphrey last week charged that Barry Goldwater, as President, would seek to eliminate farmers. He should do his homework a little better, because he’ll find out that we’ve had a decline of 5 million in the farm population under these government programs. He’ll also find that the Democratic administration has sought to get from Congress [an] extension of the farm program to include that three-fourths that is now free. He’ll find that they’ve also asked for the right to imprison farmers who wouldn’t keep books as prescribed by the federal government. The Secretary of Agriculture asked for the right to seize farms through condemnation and resell them to other individuals. And contained in that same program was a provision that would have allowed the federal government to remove 2 million farmers from the soil.

At the same time, there’s been an increase in the Department of Agriculture employees. There’s now one for every 30 farms in the United States, and still they can’t tell us how 66 shiploads of grain headed for Austria disappeared without a trace and Billie Sol Estes never left shore.

Every responsible farmer and farm organization has repeatedly asked the government to free the farm economy, but how — who are farmers to know what’s best for them? The wheat farmers voted against a wheat program. The government passed it anyway. Now the price of bread goes up; the price of wheat to the farmer goes down.

Meanwhile, back in the city, under urban renewal the assault on freedom carries on. Private property rights [are] so diluted that public interest is almost anything a few government planners decide it should be. In a program that takes from the needy and gives to the greedy, we see such spectacles as in Cleveland, Ohio, a million-and-a-half-dollar building completed only three years ago must be destroyed to make way for what government officials call a “more compatible use of the land.” The President tells us he’s now going to start building public housing units in the thousands, where heretofore we’ve only built them in the hundreds. But FHA [Federal Housing Authority] and the Veterans Administration tell us they have 120,000 housing units they’ve taken back through mortgage foreclosure. For three decades, we’ve sought to solve the problems of unemployment through government planning, and the more the plans fail, the more the planners plan. The latest is the Area Redevelopment Agency.

They’ve just declared Rice County, Kansas, a depressed area. Rice County, Kansas, has two hundred oil wells, and the 14,000 people there have over 30 million dollars on deposit in personal savings in their banks. And when the government tells you you’re depressed, lie down and be depressed.

We have so many people who can’t see a fat man standing beside a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one. So they’re going to solve all the problems of human misery through government and government planning. Well, now, if government planning and welfare had the answer — and they’ve had almost 30 years of it — shouldn’t we expect government to read the score to us once in a while? Shouldn’t they be telling us about the decline each year in the number of people needing help? The reduction in the need for public housing?

But the reverse is true. Each year the need grows greater; the program grows greater. We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well that was probably true. They were all on a diet. But now we’re told that 9.3 million families in this country are poverty-stricken on the basis of earning less than 3,000 dollars a year. Welfare spending [is] 10 times greater than in the dark depths of the Depression. We’re spending 45 billion dollars on welfare. Now do a little arithmetic, and you’ll find that if we divided the 45 billion dollars up equally among those 9 million poor families, we’d be able to give each family 4,600 dollars a year. And this added to their present income should eliminate poverty. Direct aid to the poor, however, is only running only about 600 dollars per family. It would seem that someplace there must be some overhead.

Now — so now we declare “war on poverty,” or “You, too, can be a Bobby Baker.” Now do they honestly expect us to believe that if we add 1 billion dollars to the 45 billion we’re spending, one more program to the 30-odd we have — and remember, this new program doesn’t replace any, it just duplicates existing programs — do they believe that poverty is suddenly going to disappear by magic? Well, in all fairness I should explain there is one part of the new program that isn’t duplicated. This is the youth feature. We’re now going to solve the dropout problem, juvenile delinquency, by reinstituting something like the old CCC camps [Civilian Conservation Corps], and we’re going to put our young people in these camps. But again we do some arithmetic, and we find that we’re going to spend each year just on room and board for each young person we help 4,700 dollars a year. We can send them to Harvard for 2,700! Course, don’t get me wrong. I’m not suggesting Harvard is the answer to juvenile delinquency.

But seriously, what are we doing to those we seek to help? Not too long ago, a judge called me here in Los Angeles. He told me of a young woman who’d come before him for a divorce. She had six children, was pregnant with her seventh. Under his questioning, she revealed her husband was a laborer earning 250 dollars a month. She wanted a divorce to get an 80 dollar raise. She’s eligible for 330 dollars a month in the Aid to Dependent Children Program. She got the idea from two women in her neighborhood who’d already done that very thing.

Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we’re denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we’re always “against” things — we’re never “for” anything.

Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so.

Now — we’re for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we’ve accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.

But we’re against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those people who depend on them for a livelihood. They’ve called it “insurance” to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified it was a welfare program. They only use the term “insurance” to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is 298 billion dollars in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble. And they’re doing just that.

A young man, 21 years of age, working at an average salary — his Social Security contribution would, in the open market, buy him an insurance policy that would guarantee 220 dollars a month at age 65. The government promises 127. He could live it up until he’s 31 and then take out a policy that would pay more than Social Security. Now are we so lacking in business sense that we can’t put this program on a sound basis, so that people who do require those payments will find they can get them when they’re due — that the cupboard isn’t bare?

Barry Goldwater thinks we can.

At the same time, can’t we introduce voluntary features that would permit a citizen who can do better on his own to be excused upon presentation of evidence that he had made provision for the non-earning years? Should we not allow a widow with children to work, and not lose the benefits supposedly paid for by her deceased husband? Shouldn’t you and I be allowed to declare who our beneficiaries will be under this program, which we cannot do? I think we’re for telling our senior citizens that no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds. But I think we’re against forcing all citizens, regardless of need, into a compulsory government program, especially when we have such examples, as was announced last week, when France admitted that their Medicare program is now bankrupt. They’ve come to the end of the road.

In addition, was Barry Goldwater so irresponsible when he suggested that our government give up its program of deliberate, planned inflation, so that when you do get your Social Security pension, a dollar will buy a dollar’s worth, and not 45 cents worth?

I think we’re for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we’re against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world’s population. I think we’re against the hypocrisy of assailing our allies because here and there they cling to a colony, while we engage in a conspiracy of silence and never open our mouths about the millions of people enslaved in the Soviet colonies in the satellite nations.

I think we’re for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we’re against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We’re helping 107. We’ve spent 146 billion dollars. With that money, we bought a 2 million dollar yacht for Haile Selassie. We bought dress suits for Greek undertakers, extra wives for Kenya[n] government officials. We bought a thousand TV sets for a place where they have no electricity. In the last six years, 52 nations have bought 7 billion dollars worth of our gold, and all 52 are receiving foreign aid from this country.

No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. So, governments’ programs, once launched, never disappear.

Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we’ll ever see on this earth.

Federal employees — federal employees number two and a half million; and federal, state, and local, one out of six of the nation’s work force employed by government. These proliferating bureaus with their thousands of regulations have cost us many of our constitutional safeguards. How many of us realize that today federal agents can invade a man’s property without a warrant? They can impose a fine without a formal hearing, let alone a trial by jury? And they can seize and sell his property at auction to enforce the payment of that fine. In Chico County, Arkansas, James Wier over-planted his rice allotment. The government obtained a 17,000 dollar judgment. And a U.S. marshal sold his 960-acre farm at auction. The government said it was necessary as a warning to others to make the system work.

Last February 19th at the University of Minnesota, Norman Thomas, six-times candidate for President on the Socialist Party ticket, said, “If Barry Goldwater became President, he would stop the advance of socialism in the United States.” I think that’s exactly what he will do.

But as a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn’t the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration, because back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his Party was taking the Party of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his Party, and he never returned til the day he died — because to this day, the leadership of that Party has been taking that Party, that honorable Party, down the road in the image of the labor Socialist Party of England.

Now it doesn’t require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed to the — or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? And such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, unalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment.

Our Democratic opponents seem unwilling to debate these issues. They want to make you and I believe that this is a contest between two men — that we’re to choose just between two personalities.

Well what of this man that they would destroy — and in destroying, they would destroy that which he represents, the ideas that you and I hold dear? Is he the brash and shallow and trigger-happy man they say he is? Well I’ve been privileged to know him “when.” I knew him long before he ever dreamed of trying for high office, and I can tell you personally I’ve never known a man in my life I believed so incapable of doing a dishonest or dishonorable thing.

This is a man who, in his own business before he entered politics, instituted a profit-sharing plan before unions had ever thought of it. He put in health and medical insurance for all his employees. He took 50 percent of the profits before taxes and set up a retirement program, a pension plan for all his employees. He sent monthly checks for life to an employee who was ill and couldn’t work. He provides nursing care for the children of mothers who work in the stores. When Mexico was ravaged by the floods in the Rio Grande, he climbed in his airplane and flew medicine and supplies down there.

An ex-GI told me how he met him. It was the week before Christmas during the Korean War, and he was at the Los Angeles airport trying to get a ride home to Arizona for Christmas. And he said that [there were] a lot of servicemen there and no seats available on the planes. And then a voice came over the loudspeaker and said, “Any men in uniform wanting a ride to Arizona, go to runway such-and-such,” and they went down there, and there was a fellow named Barry Goldwater sitting in his plane. Every day in those weeks before Christmas, all day long, he’d load up the plane, fly it to Arizona, fly them to their homes, fly back over to get another load.

During the hectic split-second timing of a campaign, this is a man who took time out to sit beside an old friend who was dying of cancer. His campaign managers were understandably impatient, but he said, “There aren’t many left who care what happens to her. I’d like her to know I care.” This is a man who said to his 19-year-old son, “There is no foundation like the rock of honesty and fairness, and when you begin to build your life on that rock, with the cement of the faith in God that you have, then you have a real start.” This is not a man who could carelessly send other people’s sons to war. And that is the issue of this campaign that makes all the other problems I’ve discussed academic, unless we realize we’re in a war that must be won.

Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory. They call their policy “accommodation.” And they say if we’ll only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy, he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us. All who oppose them are indicted as warmongers. They say we offer simple answers to complex problems. Well, perhaps there is a simple answer — not an easy answer — but simple: If you and I have the courage to tell our elected officials that we want our national policy based on what we know in our hearts is morally right.

We cannot buy our security, our freedom from the threat of the bomb by committing an immorality so great as saying to a billion human beings now enslaved behind the Iron Curtain, “Give up your dreams of freedom because to save our own skins, we’re willing to make a deal with your slave masters.” Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Now let’s set the record straight. There’s no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there’s only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

Admittedly, there’s a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson of history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight or surrender. If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand — the ultimatum. And what then — when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. If nothing in life is worth dying for, when did this begin — just in the face of this enemy? Or should Moses have told the children of Israel to live in slavery under the pharaohs? Should Christ have refused the cross? Should the patriots at Concord Bridge have thrown down their guns and refused to fire the shot heard ’round the world? The martyrs of history were not fools, and our honored dead who gave their lives to stop the advance of the Nazis didn’t die in vain. Where, then, is the road to peace? Well it’s a simple answer after all.

You and I have the courage to say to our enemies, “There is a price we will not pay.” “There is a point beyond which they must not advance.” And this — this is the meaning in the phrase of Barry Goldwater’s “peace through strength.” Winston Churchill said, “The destiny of man is not measured by material computations. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we’re spirits — not animals.” And he said, “There’s something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty.”

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny.

We’ll preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.

We will keep in mind and remember that Barry Goldwater has faith in us. He has faith that you and I have the ability and the dignity and the right to make our own decisions and determine our own destiny.

Thank you very much.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ronaldreaganatimeforchoosing.htm

Ron Paul Highlights at the Thanksgiving Family Forum (Family Leader Debate)

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Warmongers and Welfare Statists United In Defense of The Warfare & Welfare Economy and Tyrannical Bureaucracy vs. Peace & Prosperity Economy and Constitutional Republic

Posted on June 23, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Economics, Education, Energy, Enivornment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Microeconomics, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Private Sector, Public Sector, Raves, Unemployment, Unions, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 

“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. “

~George Washington

 

President Obama Afghanistan Withdrawal Speech (June 22, 2011)

 

Ron Paul: Bring ALL the troops home ABC 6/22/2011

 

Ron Paul: Is War Ever Justifiable?

 

Senators McCain & Kerry Move To Extend War In Libya For A Year!

 

“I Believe The President Did The Right Thing By Intervening In Libya!” Senator John McCain

 

“We Didn’t Choose This Fight! It Started With 9/11” John Kerry On Why We Must Fight Gaddafi pt.1

 

“We Didn’t Choose This Fight! It Started With 9/11” John Kerry On Why We Must Fight Gaddafi pt.2

 

We Can No longer Afford To Rebuild Afghanistan & America! We Must Choose & I Choose America! pt.1

 

We Can No longer Afford To Rebuild Afghanistan & America! We Must Choose & I Choose America! pt.2

 

Milton Friedman – Emergence of the modern welfare state

Responsibility to the Poor

 

Ron Paul: Leave Libya Alone!

 

Ron Paul’s Words of Warning From 1983 to 2008

 

Ron Paul warns of 9/11 like event in 1998 – RP2012

 

Ron Paul: It’s Time to Get out of Afghanistan!

 

Ron Paul – Current Conditions Or Just A Bad Dream ?

 

Ron Paul on the Deficit, Government Spending, and Military Industrial Complex (1988)

 

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex

 

Military Industrial Complex Totally Out of Control!

 

Founding Fathers: The Threat of Tyranny

 

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”

~George Washington

 

 “Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.”

~Thomas Jefferson

The progressive government interventionists of both the Democratic and Republican parties are uniting in defense of the warfare and welfare economy and tyrannical bureaucracy.

Their goals are clear–perpetual never-ending war and cradle to grave welfare dependency on the state.

The American people oppose the warfare and welfare economy.

The American people want a peace and prosperity economy.

The American people want the troops to brought home.

The American people want the Federal Government to live  within its means of the American people  by permanently closing Federal Department including the following:

  1. Department of Agriculture
  2. Department of Commerce
  3. Department of Education
  4. Department of Energy
  5. Department of Housing and Urban Development
  6. Department of Homeland Security
  7. Department of Labor
  8. Department of Interior
  9. Department of Transportation
  10. Department of Veteran Affairs

 

 Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

 

Paul & Stossel: Libertarians Talk

 

Ron Paul: Get Gov’t Out of Healthcare

 

Ron Paul on Constitutional Freedoms

 

 

Ron Paul on Freedom of Choice

 

Ron Paul on Illegal Immigration

  

 

Ron Paul – The Role of Government 1988! (Part 1/4)

 

Ron Paul – The Role of Government 1988! (Part 2/4)

 

Ron Paul – The Role of Government 1988! (Part 3/4)

 

 

Ron Paul – The Role of Government 1988! (Part 4/4)

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

U.S. Government Interventionism Does Not End Well At Home or Abroad–Videos

Posted on January 31, 2011. Filed under: Banking, Blogroll, Business, College, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Energy, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Homes, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, Money, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Security, Strategy, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wealth, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , |

  

“Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign world.

~George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

 “As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until wealth is aggregated into the hands of a few and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war.” 

~Abraham Lincoln

“I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

~General Robert E. Lee

Eisenhower warns us of the military industrial complex.

 

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address Jan 17, 1961 Pt 1

 

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address Jan 17, 1961 Pt 2

 

Dwight D. Eisenhower

Farewell Address

delivered 17 January 1961

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/FlashDocuments/Dwight%20D.%20Eisenhower%20-%20Farewell%20Address.swf

 

Ron Paul on the Middle East

 

Ron Paul on Egypt: U.S. Meddling Leads to Unintended Consequences

Ron Paul on Uncertainty in Middle East

Glenn Beck-01/31/11-A

 

Glenn Beck-01/31/11-B

 

Glenn Beck-01/31/11-C

 

 


Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Gleaves Whitney–Videos

Posted on August 31, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Culture, Economics, Education, Employment, Farming, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Rants, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

Gleaves Whitney’s The Decline and Renewal of American Conservatism

Who is Gleaves?

Wednesday Night with Gleaves 1 Remarks on Buckley

Conservatism -A Definition

 Gleaves 3 The Holes in Liberalism

Gleaves 4 The Great Awakenings

Gleaves 5 The Pamphleteers

Gleaves 6 Reagan and the First Source of Renewal

Gleaves 7 The Second Source of Renewal -Our Founding

Gleaves 8 Source of Renewal -Our Constitution

Gleaves 9 Source of Renewal: Western Civilization

Gleaves 10 Deserted Island Books -Western Civilization

Gleaves Whitney Part3a A Source of Renewal of Conservatism

Gleaves Whitney Part3b A Source of Renewal of Conservatism

Ask Gleaves: Why George Washington Matters (1 of 2)

Ask Gleaves: Why George Washington Matters (2 of 2)

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Gleaves on “To The Point” (2 of 3)

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Albert Jay Nock–Our Enemy, The State–Videos

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Julian Assange–Wikileaks–Afghanistan War Logs and Pentagon Snuff Films–Videos

Posted on July 26, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Computers, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

 “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. ”

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

~George Washington

Wikileaks Paint Grim Afghan Picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfQZm4vWYoY

 

Wikileaks Releases Secret Afghan War Documents

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange: PFC Bradley Manning is effectively like a Guantanamo detainee

 

EXCLUSIVE Julian Assange on the Afghanistan war logs + Links + Downloads + How to video

Wikileaks Afghanistan War Logs: Massive leak of secret files exposes truth about war

WikiLeaks 90,000+ Secret Military Docs Part 5/7 – Democracy NOW!

Glenn Greenwald on Wikileaks Hunt – June 17, 2010 Democracy NOW!

Assange/Ellsberg/Jonsdottir on ABC-News Pt.1/3

Assange/Ellsberg/Jonsdottir on ABC-News Pt.2/3

Assange/Ellsberg/Jonsdottir on ABC-News Pt.3/3

Julian Assange: Why the world needs WikiLeaks

Wikileaks – Iceland

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCmjmDXp7TI

 

Daniel Ellsberg fears a US hit on Wikileaks founder Julian Assange

WikiLeaks editor on Apache combat video: No excuse for US killing civilians

Pentagon vs. Wikileaks, GATA vs. CFTC, Police vs. Everyone – Sunday Update

Amy Goodman Reports on “Collateral Murder” WikiLeaks Video

 

Alex Jones Discusses Wikileaks Release Of Pentagon Snuff Video

 

Wikileaks on the Culture Show – Friday 29th January 2010

Julian Assange

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange

The Whistleblower 1 of 2 – Julian Assange report on SBS’s Dateline by Mark Davis struth1969

The Whistleblower 2 of 2 – Julian Assange report on SBS’s Dateline by Mark Davis struth1969

 

Wikileaks Releases Thousands Text Messages From September 11, 2001

Wikileaks….

 

 

Ron Paul: A New Hope

 

“Observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all.”

~George Washington

 

“The essence of the interventionist policy is to take from one group to give to another. It is confiscation and distribution.”

“Economic nationalism, the necessary complement of domestic interventionism, hurts the interests of foreign peoples and thus creates international conflict. It suggests the idea of amending this unsatisfactory state of affairs by war.”

~Ludwig von Mises

Government intervention in the domestic economy and government intervention in other countries invariably leads to more government intervention to correct the problems created by previous government interventions.

The root problem is government intervention.

People want to be left alone to lead their lives, but the government or state run by political elites cannot leave the people alone.

The political elites or political class needs to justify their existence by imposing their views or ideology on others.

Nearly nine years after 9/11 Americans soldiers are still fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The American people demand results not new laws limiting free speech or the prosecution of leakers.

The American people demand that government intervention both abroad in the form of nation building or at home in the form of wealth redistribution be stopped.

The American people demand that the American family comes first and the Federal Government be limited in both scope and size.

Bring all of America’s professional soldiers home.

Just Do It.

“All this passionate praise of the supereminence of government action is but a poor disguise for the individual interventionists self-deification. The great god State is a great god only because it is expected to do exclusively what the individual advocate of interventionism wants to see achieved.”

“An essential point in the social philosophy of interventionism is the existence of an inexhaustible fund which can be squeezed forever. The whole system of interventionism collapses when this fountain is drained off: The Santa Claus principle liquidates itself.”

~Ludwig von Mises

 

 

Background Articles and Videos

Victor Davis Hanson (1/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (2/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (3/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (4/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (5/6)

Victor Davis Hanson (6/6)

The George Bush You Forgot

THE BEST DEFENSE: Preventive War

Thomas Barnett: The Pentagon’s new map for war and peace

Mission Impossible? Deconstructing Counter-insurgency in Afghanistan

Victor Davis Hanson: War in the Post Modern World – why the new laws of conflict are surreal

 

Julian Assange: Is WikiLeaks Biased?

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (1/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (2/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (3/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (4/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (5/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (6/7)

WikiLeaks Release 1.0 (7/7)

 

Wikileaks

“…Wikileaks is an amorphous, international organization, based in Sweden,[1] that publishes anonymous submissions and leaks of sensitive documents from governments and other organizations, while preserving the anonymity of their sources. Its website, launched in 2006, is run by The Sunshine Press.[2] The organization has stated it was founded by Chinese dissidents, as well as journalists, mathematicians, and start-up company technologists from the U.S., Taiwan, Europe, Australia, and South Africa.[3] Newspaper articles and The New Yorker magazine (June 7, 2010) describe Julian Assange, an Australian journalist and Internet activist, as its director.[4] Within a year of its launch, the site said its database had grown to more than 1.2 million documents;[5] while the “Collateral Murder” video is one of its most notable releases.[6][7] It has won a number of new media awards for its reports. …”

Wikileaks went public in January 2007, when it first appeared on the Web.[8] The site states that it was “founded by Chinese dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and start-up company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa”.[3] The creators of Wikileaks were unidentified as of January 2007[update],[9] although it has been represented in public since January 2007 by non-anonymous speakers such as Julian Assange, who had described himself as a member of Wikileaks’ advisory board[10] and was later referred to as the “founder of Wikileaks”.[11] As of June 2009[update], the site had over 1,200 registered volunteers[3] and listed its advisory board as consisting of Assange, Phillip Adams, Wang Dan, CJ Hinke, Ben Laurie, Tashi Namgyal Khamsitsang, Xiao Qiang, Chico Whitaker, and Wang Youcai.[12] Despite appearing on the list, when contacted by Mother Jones magazine in 2010, Khamsitsangs said he received an e-mail from Wikileaks, but never agreed to be an advisor.[13]

Wikileaks states that its “primary interest is in exposing oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to people of all regions who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their governments and corporations.”[3][14]

In January 2007, the website stated that it had over 1.2 million leaked documents that it was preparing to publish.[15] An article in The New Yorker said that “one of the WikiLeaks activists owned a server that was being used as a node for the Tor network. Millions of secret transmissions passed through it. The activist noticed that hackers from China were using the network to gather foreign governments’ information, and began to record this traffic. Only a small fraction has ever been posted on WikiLeaks, but the initial tranche served as the site’s foundation, and Assange was able to say, “We have received over one million documents from thirteen countries.””[16] Assange responded to such statements by saying “the imputation is incorrect. The facts concern a 2006 investigation into Chinese espionage one of our contacts were involved in. Somewhere between none and handful of those documents were ever released on WikiLeaks. Non-government targets of the Chinese espionage, such as Tibetan associations were informed (by us)”.[17] The group has subsequently released a number of other significant documents which have become front-page news items, ranging from documentation of equipment expenditures and holdings in the Afghanistan war to corruption in Kenya.[18]

Their stated goal is to ensure that whistle-blowers and journalists are not jailed for emailing sensitive or classified documents, as happened to Chinese journalist Shi Tao, who was sentenced to 10 years in 2005 after publicising an email from Chinese officials about the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre.[19]

The project has drawn comparisons to Daniel Ellsberg’s leaking of the Pentagon Papers in 1971.[20] In the United States, the leaking of some documents may be legally protected. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution guarantees anonymity, at least in the area of political discourse.[20] Author and journalist Whitley Strieber has spoken about the benefits of the Wikileaks project, noting that “Leaking a government document can mean jail, but jail sentences for this can be fairly short. However, there are many places where it means long incarceration or even death, such as China and parts of Africa and the Middle East.”[21]

The site has won a number of awards, including the 2008 Economist magazine New Media Award,[22] and in June 2009, Wikileaks and Julian Assange won Amnesty International UK’s Media Award 2009 (in the category “New Media”) for the 2008 publication of “Kenya: The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances”,[23] a report by the Kenyan National Commission on Human Rights about police killings in Kenya.[24] In May 2010 it was rated number 1 of “websites that could totally change the news”.[6]

Suspension of activity, fundraising

On 24 December 2009, Wikileaks announced that it was experiencing a shortage of funds[25] and suspended all access to its website except for a form to submit new material.[26] Material that was previously published was no longer available, although some could still be accessed on unofficial mirrors.[27][28] Wikileaks stated on its website that it would resume full operation once the operational costs were covered.[26][29] Wikileaks saw this as a kind of strike “to ensure that everyone who is involved stops normal work and actually spends time raising revenue”.[30] While it was initially hoped that funds could be secured by 6 January 2010,[31] it was only on 3 February 2010 that WikiLeaks announced that its minimum fundraising goal had been achieved.[32]

On 22 January 2010, PayPal suspended Wikileaks’ donation account and froze its assets. Wikileaks said that this had happened before, and was done for “no obvious reason”.[33] The account was restored on 25 January 2010.[34]

On May 18, 2010, WikiLeaks announced that its website and archive were back up.[35]

As of June 2010, Wikileaks was a finalist for a grant of more than half a million dollars from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation,[36] but did not make the cut.[37] Wikileaks commented, “Wikileaks was highest rated project in the Knight challenge, strongly recommended to the board but gets no funding. Go figure”. Wikileaks said that the Knight foundation announced the award to “’12 Grantees who will impact future of news’ — but not WikiLeaks” and questioned whether Knight foundation was “really looking for impact”.[37] A spokesman of the Knight Foundation disputed parts of WikiLeaks’ statement, saying “WikiLeaks was not recommended by Knight staff to the board.”[38] However, he declined to say whether WikiLeaks was the project rated highest by the Knight advisory panel, which consists of non-staffers, among them journalist Jennifer 8. Lee, who has done PR work for WikiLeaks with the press and on social networking sites.[38]

On July 17, Jacob Appelbaum spoke on behalf of WikiLeaks at the 2010 Hackers on Planet Earth conference in New York City, replacing Assange due to the presence of federal agents at the conference.[39][40] He announced that the WikiLeaks submission system was again up and running, after it had been temporarily suspended.[39][41] Assange was a surprise speaker at a TED conference on 19 July 2010 in Oxford, and confirmed that WikiLeaks was now accepting submissions again.[42][43]

 Staff and funding

According to a January 2010 interview, the Wikileaks team then consisted of five people working full-time and about 800 people who worked occasionally, none of whom were compensated.[30] Wikileaks has no official headquarters. The expenses per year are about €200,000, mainly for servers and bureaucracy, but would reach €600,000 if work currently done by volunteers were paid for.[30] Wikileaks does not pay for lawyers, as hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal support have been donated by media organisations such as the Associated Press, The Los Angeles Times, and the National Newspaper Publishers Association.[30] Its only revenue stream is donations, but Wikileaks is planning to add an auction model to sell early access to documents.[30] According to the Wau Holland Foundation, Wikileaks receives no money for personnel costs, only for hardware, travelling and bandwidth.[44] An article in TechEYE.net wrote

As a charity accountable under German law, donations for Wikileaks can be made to the foundation. Funds are held in escrow and are given to Wikileaks after the whistleblower website files an application containing a statement with proof of payment. The foundation does not pay any sort of salary nor give any renumeration to Wikileaks’ personnel, corroborating the statement of the site’s German representative Daniel Schmitt on national television that all personnel works voluntarily, even its speakers.[44] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikileaks

Julian Assange

“…Julian Paul Assange (English pronunciation: /əˈsɑːnʒ/; born 1971) is an Australian internet activist and journalist best known for his involvement with Wikileaks, a whistleblower website. Assange was a physics and mathematics student, a hacker and a computer programmer, before taking on his current role as spokesperson and editor in chief for Wikileaks. Assange has said that “you can’t publish a paper on physics without the full experimental data and results; that should be the standard in journalism”.[1]Julian Paul Assange (English pronunciation: /əˈsɑːnʒ/; born 1971) is an Australian internet activist and journalist best known for his involvement with Wikileaks, a whistleblower website. Assange was a physics and mathematics student, a hacker and a computer programmer, before taking on his current role as spokesperson and editor in chief for Wikileaks. Assange has said that “you can’t publish a paper on physics without the full experimental data and results; that should be the standard in journalism”.[1]

Early lifeAssange was born in Townsville, Queensland in 1971.[2] Assange has said that his parents ran a touring theatre company, and that he was enrolled in 37 schools and six universities in Australia over the course of his early life.[3] During his childhood years, he lived on the run with mother and half-brother. They were avoiding his half-brother’s father who was believed to belong to a cult led by Anne Hamilton-Byrne.[2]

An article in The New Yorker has written that Assange was married to his girlfriend in an unofficial ceremony at the age of 18 and had a son.[2] The article says she left him while he was being investigated by the Australian Federal Police for hacking, and took their son.[2]

Assange helped to write the 1997 book Underground: Tales of Hacking, Madness and Obsession on the Electronic Frontier which credits him as researcher.[4] It draws from his teenage experiences as a member of a hacker group named “International Subversives”, which involved a 1991 raid of his Melbourne home by the Australian Federal Police.[5][6] Wired, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Sunday Times have pointed out that there exist similarities between Assange and the person called “Mendax” in the book.[7][8][9] The New Yorker has identified Assange as Mendax and explains its origin from a phrase of Horace. Assange was reported to have accessed various computers (belonging to an Australian university, a telecommunications company, and other organizations) via modem[10] to test their security flaws; he later pleaded guilty to 24 charges of hacking and was released on bond for good conduct after being fined AU$2100.[5][6][8]

According to the Personal Democracy Forum, Assange founded a civil rights group for children called “Pickup”.[11]

 Computer programming

After the hacking trial, Assange lived in Melbourne as a programmer and a developer of free software.[8]

In 1995, Assange wrote Strobe, the first free and open source port scanner.[12][13] Strobe inspired Fyodor to develop the Nmap port scanner.[14]

Starting around 1997, Assange co-invented “Rubberhose deniable encryption”, a cryptographic concept made into a software package for Linux designed to provide plausible deniability against rubber-hose cryptanalysis,[15] which he originally intended “as a tool for human rights workers who needed to protect sensitive data in the field”.[16]

Other free software that Assange has authored or co-authored includes the Usenet caching software NNTPCache[17] and Surfraw, a command line interface for web-based search engines.

University studies and travel

Assange studied physics and mathematics at the University of Melbourne until 2006, when he began to focus heavily on Wikileaks.[2] He has been described as being largely self-taught and widely read on science and mathematics.[8] He has also studied philosophy and neuroscience.[11] On his personal web page Assange described how he represented his University at the Australian National Physics Competition around 2005.[18]

Assange has said that it is “pretty much true” that he is constantly on the move, and that he is “living in airports these days”.[2][19] Assange has lived for periods in Australia, Kenya and Tanzania, and has visited many other places including Vietnam, Sweden, Iceland, Siberia, Belgium and the United States.[2][19][20][21][22] Assange began renting a house in Iceland on March 30, 2010, from which he and other activists, including Birgitta Jónsdóttir, worked on the collateral murder video.[2] In May 2010 upon landing in Australia, his passport was taken from him, and when it was returned he was told that his passport was to be cancelled. The Australian Customs Service stated that such confiscation was only because his passport was worn, and that Assange was otherwise free to travel.[23][24]

In 1999, Assange registered the website, Leaks.org; “but”, he says, “then I didn’t do anything with it”.[21]

WikiLeaks

Wikileaks was founded in 2006.[2][19] Assange now sits on its nine-member advisory board,[25] and is a prominent media spokesman on its behalf. While newspapers have described him as a “director”[26] or “founder”[5] of Wikileaks, Assange has said “I don’t call myself a founder”,[27] but he does describe himself as the editor in chief of Wikileaks,[28] and has stated that he has the final decision in the process of vetting documents submitted to the site.[6] Like all others working for the site, Assange is an unpaid volunteer.[27]

Assange was the winner of the 2009 Amnesty International Media Award (New Media),[29] awarded for exposing extrajudicial assassinations in Kenya with the investigation The Cry of Blood – Extra Judicial Killings and Disappearances.[30]

 
Julian Assange at New Media Days ’09 in Copenhagen

In accepting the Amnesty International Media Award 2009, Mr. Assange stated:

It is a reflection of the courage and strength of Kenyan civil society that this injustice was documented. Through the tremendous work of organizations such as the Oscar foundation, the KNHCR, Mars Group Kenya and others we had the primary support we needed to expose these murders to the world. I know that they will not rest, and we will not rest, until justice is done.
“WikiLeaks wins Amnesty International 2009 Media Award for exposing Extra judicial killings in Kenya”.[31]

He has also won the 2008 Economist Index on Censorship Award; and various other media awards.[32]

Assange says that Wikileaks has released more classified documents than the rest of the world press combined:

That’s not something I say as a way of saying how successful we are – rather, that shows you the parlous state of the rest of the media. How is it that a team of five people has managed to release to the public more suppressed information, at that level, than the rest of the world press combined? It’s disgraceful.[19]

No real bombshells in Wikileak Afghan docs

Rick Moran

“…

As for the question of should they have been published? Of course not. Anyone who gave that anti-American nutcase Julian Assange – an Australian by birth – access to those documents should be arrested, tried, convicted, and sent to jail for a very long time. Untold damage is being done simply because no one knows what use of this information will be made by the enemy. What intelligence can they glean from its contents? Certainly the Taliban can figure out some of our weaknesses by reading through these documents. For that reason alone, Assange himself should be relentlessly pursued and arrested. It is highly likely that this irresponsible release will result in additional American casualties.

A related point to this release of documents is the way in which the government classifies information. You don’t have to be a free speech extremist to look in askance at much of what the government considers “classified.” Millions of documents every year are hidden away – some of them for no other reason than they would be politically damaging to someone. There have been bills in Congress introduced to set up committees or boards to review many documents from agencies not related to national security who get the “classified” designation but nothing has come of such proposals as yet.

However, this is not the time for any such debate. The New York Times and the other media outlets who published this material will get away with it because of our expansive freedom of the press traditions and laws. Even their claim that they withheld some documents because, in their opinion, they were too sensitive is ridiculous. Who are they to make that determination? The bottom line is that laws were broken in handing these documents to an irresponsible source who also broke the law in giving them to the press.
…”

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/07/no_real_bombshells

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Victor Davis Hanson–Videos

Collectivism: Socialism, Communism, Progressivism and Fascism

Progressivism America’s Cancer–Videos

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Walter Block–Videos

Thomas DiLorenzo–The Economic Model of the Fascist State–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Paul Edward Gottfried–Fascism, Anti-Fascism, and the Welfare State–Videos

G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism vs. Collectivism–Videos

Robert Higgs–The Complex Path of Ideological Change–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Hunter Lewis–Where Keynes Went Wrong–Videos

Jeffrey Miron–Obamaomics–Videos

Gary North–Keynes and His Influence–Take The North Challenge–Videos

George Gerald Reisman–Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian–Videos

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

The Racist Test for Judge Sonya Sotomayor and President Obama–Racism Unmasked!

Calling and Raising The Stakes for Race Card Players–Obama and Sotomayor

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

The Cloward-Piven Strategy Of The Progressive Radical Socialists: Wrecking The U.S. Economy By Massive Government Dependence, Spending, Deficits, Debts, Taxes And Regulations!

President Barack Obama’s Role Model–President Franklin D. Roosevelt–The Worse President For The U.S. and World Economies and The American People–With The Same Results–High Unemployment Rates–Over 25 Million American Citizens Seeking Full Time Jobs Today–Worse Than The Over 13 Million Seeking Jobs During The Worse of The Great Depression!

Progressives

Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Plan Written In Prison By Convicted Felon Richard Creamer!

Obamanomics–New Deal Progressive Radical Socialist Interventionism

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

The Great Depression and the Current Recession–Robert Higgs–Videos

The Obama Depression: Lessons Learned–Deja Vu!

Lord Christopher Monckton–Climate Change–Treaty–Videos

Progressive Radical Socialist Canned Criticism of American People: Danger, Profits, and Wrong Thinking

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos

The Bloody History of Communism–Videos

Obama Youth–Civilian National Security Force–National Socialism–Hitler Youth–Brownshirts– Redux?–Collectivism!

American Progressive Liberal Fascism–The Wave of The Future Or Back To Past Mistakes?

Today’s Progressives–Obama’s Radical Socialist Democratic Party

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

The Progressive Radical Socialist Family Tree–ACORN & AmeriCorps–Time To Chop It Down

It Is Official–America On The Obama Road To Fascism–Thomas Sowell!

President Obama and His Keynesian Spending Cult of The Fascist Democrat Radicals–FDRs

_in_wikileak.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Richard Brookhiser–Videos

Posted on June 12, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Federal Government, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, history, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Science, Talk Radio, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

The Founders and Us

A Reagan Forum with Richard Brookhiser

BookTV: Richard Brookhiser, author “Right Time, Right Place”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDitSbf6fhU

 

Bill Moyers: Richard Brookhiser (1) on William F. Buckley, Jr.

Bill Moyers: Richard Brookhiser (2) on William F. Buckley, Jr.

Richard Brookhiser Speaks at Claremont McKenna College – Part 1

Richard Brookhiser Speaks at Claremont McKenna College – Part 2

Richard Brookhiser Speaks at Claremont McKenna College – Part 3

Authors@Google: Richard Brookhiser

“George Washington on Leadership”

Christopher Hitchenens and Richard Brookhiser part 1/8

Christopher Hitchenens and Richard Brookhiser part 2/8

Christopher Hitchenens and Richard Brookhiser part 3/8

Christopher Hitchenens and Richard Brookhiser part 4/8

Christopher Hitchenens and Richard Brookhiser part 5/8

Christopher Hitchenens and Richard Brookhiser part 6/8

Christopher Hitchenens and Richard Brookhiser part 7/8

Christopher Hitchenens and Richard Brookhiser part 8/8

Background Articles and Videos

  

 What Would the Founders Do?” with Richard Brookhiser

 

  

Firing Line mock episode with William F. Buckley and Christopher Buckley

Richard Brookhiser

“…Richard Brookhiser (born February 23, 1955) is an American journalist, biographer and historian. He is a senior editor at National Review. He is most widely known for a series of biographies of America’s founders, including Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris, and George Washington.

Brookhiser was born in Rochester, New York.[1] He has written books that deal either with the nation’s founding, or the principles of America’s founders, including What Would Our Founders Do?, a book describing how the founding fathers would approach topical issues that generate controversy in modern-day America.

Brookhiser began writing for National Review in 1970. “My first article, on antiwar protests in my high school, was a cover story in National Review in 1970, when I was 15.” [2] He earned an A.B. degree (1977) at Yale,[1] where he was active in the Yale Political Union as a member and sometime Chairman of the Party of the Right. In his freshman year he took a class on Thomas Jefferson taught by Garry Wills. Although admitted to Yale Law School, Brookhiser went to work full-time for National Review in 1977; by the time he was 23, he was a senior editor, the youngest in the magazine’s history. He was selected as the successor to the magazine’s founder, William F. Buckley, until Buckley ultimately changed his mind. For a short time he wrote speeches for Vice President George H.W. Bush.

He has written for a variety of magazines and newspapers. Brookhiser’s work has appeared in the “Talk of the Town” section of The New Yorker magazine as well as in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Cosmopolitan, The Atlantic Monthly, Time, and Vanity Fair. In 1987 he began a column for The New York Observer which he wrote until 2007.

Brookhiser both wrote and hosted the documentary film Rediscovering George Washington, by Michael Pack, broadcast on PBS on July 4, 2002.[2] He was historian curator of the exhibition “Alexander Hamilton: The Man Who Made Modern America”, at The New-York Historical Society (2004–2005). He received an honorary doctorate degree in 2005 from Washington College.[2] As of October 2003, he was driving a ’77 Camaro.[3]

In 2008, Brookhiser received the National Humanities Medal from the National Endowment for the Humanities.[4]

 …”

“…Books

  • Right Time, Right Place: Coming of Age with William F. Buckley Jr. and the Conservative Movement, 272 pages (Basic Books: 2009) ISBN 978-0-465-01355-5
  • George Washington on Leadership, 269 pages (Basic Books: 2008) ISBN 978-0-465-00302-0
  • What Would the Founders Do?: Our Questions, Their Answers, 261 pages (Basic Books: 2006) ISBN 0-465-00819-4 Contents links.
  • Gentleman Revolutionary: Gouverneur Morris, the Rake Who Wrote the Constitution, 272 pages (Free Press: 2003) ISBN 0-7432-2379-9
  • Rules of Civility: The 110 Precepts That Guided Our First President in War and Peace, 90 pages (University of Virginia Press: 2003) ISBN 0-8139-2218-6
  • America’s First Dynasty : The Adamses, 1735—1918, 256 pages (Free Press: 2002) ISBN 0-684-86881-4
  • George Washington: A National Treasure, 104 pages (National Portrait Gallery, Smithsonian Institution: 2002) ISBN 0-295-98236-5
  • Fighting the Good Fight: A History of the New York Conservative Party, 434 pages (St. Augustine’s Press: 2002) ISBN 1-58731-251-4
  • (Contributor) Patriot Sage: George Washington and the American Political Tradition, editors Gary L. Gregg, Matthew Spalding, William J. Bennett, 355 pages (ISI Books: 1999) ISBN 1-882926-38-2
  • Alexander Hamilton, American, 240 pages (Free Press: 1999) ISBN 0-684-83919-9
  • Founding Father: Rediscovering George Washington, 240 pages (Free Press: 1996) ISBN 0-684-82291-1
  • Way of the Wasp: How It Made America, and How It Can Save It, So to Speak, 171 pages (Free Press: 1990) ISBN 0-02-904721-8
  • The Outside Story (Doubleday reissue edition: 1986) ISBN 0-385-19679-2

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Mr. Conservative In Heaven–William F. Buckley Jr. RIP

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Glenn Beck On The Indispensable Founding Father–George Washington–Videos

Posted on May 7, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Computers, Economics, Education, Federal Government, government, government spending, history, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , |

 

“The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves. “

~George Washington

 President George Washington – The Greatest Man in the World

“THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

~Thomas Paine

Glenn Beck-05/07/10-A

Glenn Beck-05/07/10-B

Glenn Beck-05/07/10-C

Glenn Beck-05/07/10-D

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

“It is the nature and intention of a constitution to prevent governing by party, by establishing a common principle that shall limit and control the power and impulse of party, and that says to all parties, thus far shalt thou go and no further. But in the absence of a constitution, men look entirely to party; and instead of principle governing party, party governs principle.”

~Thomas Paine

George Washington takes the Oath of Office (Inauguration)

“The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon. “

~George Washington

Background Articles and Videos

George Washington (Part 1) 

 

George Washington (Part 2)

George Washington (Part 3)

“Common Sense” by Thomas Paine – Sparked the Revolution

Thomas Paine: From Pirate to Revolutionary | by Jeff Riggenbach

 

Thomas Paine-Christopher Hitchens (part I)

Thomas Paine-Christopher Hitchens (part 2)

Thomas Paine-Christopher Hitchens (part 3)

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Glenn Beck On The Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams and The First American Revolution–Videos

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Tea Parties–The Second American Revolution Ramps Up–Third Party Time–Freedom and Families First–Videos

Posted on April 15, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Economics, Education, Employment, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, government, government spending, Homes, Investments, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Science, Security, Talk Radio, Taxes, Technology, Transportation, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

~George Washington

 tea party

 Boston Tea Party April 14, 2010

Sarah Palin rocks the Boston tea party april 14 2010! (portion of her speech)

Tax Day Tea Party

Why Ron Paul Leads The Tea Party, Not Sarah Palin

 

Chicago 2010 Tea Party

2010-4-15 Pittsburgh Tea Party (4) God Bless America

St.Louis Tax Day Tea Party, Bill Hennessy, 04-15-2010.

 

 

 

Freedom Watch – NYC Tax Day Tea Party

Neil Cavuto At The Atlanta Tea Party

 Tea Party Rallies Go Nationwide on Tax Day

Why Tea Parties? The Trillion Dollar Question

 

 

All across the nation the American people will be attending Tea Parties on April 15–the day their tax returns and taxes are due.

The political class in America feels threatened.

The political class, both Democrats and Republicans, fear that the Americans that attend the tea parties may take the next step and become a new political party with its core base being the Democrats, Republicans, Independents, Libertarians and others who are increasingly organizing and protesting massive Federal Government spending, deficits, debt, regulations and taxes.

Many of the Americans attending the tea parties favor the replacement of all Federal taxes with the FairTax that neither the Democratic nor Republican parties and the state controlled media never mention or cover.

The FairTax: It’s Time

What is the FairTax?

FairTax Prebate Explained

Mike Huckabee – What is the “Fair Tax?”

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 7

Who really opposes the FairTax?

Putting a cap or limiting Federal Government spending to 80% of FairTax collections and the use the remaining 20% to slowly payoff the National Debt is also never even considered or mentioned.

Closing ten Federal Departments and reducing the number of Federal Government employees by at least 50% is what needs to be done, but again is never considered or mentioned.

The political class, both Democrats and Republicans , either attack the Americans who attend the tea parties as extremists or racists or try to recruit them into the Republican ranks.

Instead more and more tea party patriots are looking for a viable alternative political party to the big government Democrat and Republican parties.

A political party that follows the Constitution and conservative and libertarian principles.

A political party that wants limited and fiscally responsible government.

A political party that supports free enterprise and consumer sovereignty.

A political party that puts freedom and families first.

Paul/Palin in 2012 looks like a winner and would unite the libertarian and conservative wings of the movement.

This represents about 40% of the voters and a Paul/Palin ticket would also attract independents and Democrats, young and older voters that would bring the total vote count into the 55%-60% range.

Join the Second American Revolution!

Tea Party Time!

God Bless the U.S.A. by Lee Greenwood

 “The time is near at hand which must determine whether Americans are to be free men or slaves.”

~George Washington 

Background Articles and Videos

9_12 Taxpayer Tea Party March on Washington_ DC

The Origins of the FairTax

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 1

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 2

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 3

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 4

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 5

Tom Wright on the FairTax part 6

Tom Wright On The FairTax–Videos

 Tea Party rally in New Haven

TAX REVOLT! Attend a Tax Day / Tea Party event near you!

 

 

Rachel Maddow On The Tea Parties–She Slammed Them With An Offensive Label–”Tea Bagging”–Throw Tasteless Double Entrendre Maddow Off The Air!

Since 1773

 

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Glenn Beck: On Strike–Shut It Down–Department of Education–Smaller Government and Less Spending–The Sooner The Better!

The Glenn Beck Plan vs. The Pronk Palisades Plan of The American Citizens Alliance Party–Videos
 

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

Glenn Beck On Prosperity And The Perils of Progressivism

A Common Sense Political Agenda For A New Conservative and Libertarian Party: American Citizens Alliance Party (ACAP)–A CAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt and Regulations!

A New Political Party In The United States? American Citizens Alliance Party–ACAP On Government Spending, Taxes, Debt, and Regulations!

Third Party Time? Yes Provided You Have $10 Billion and 10 Years!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Joseph J. Ellis–His Excellence: George Washinton–Videos

Posted on April 3, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Books, Communications, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Farming, Federal Government, Fiscal Policy, Foreign Policy, government, government spending, Health Care, history, Immigration, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, Medicine, Monetary Policy, People, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Religion, Resources, Reviews, Science, Security, Taxes, Video, War, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

 

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

~George Washington

 

“The men shedding most of the blood at Valley Forge, and throughout the remaining years of the war came from the lowest rung of American society. “When men are irritated, and the Passions inflame,” Washington observed somewhat caustically, “they fly hastily and chearfully to Arms.” Those exuberant days of popular enthusiasm for the war were now gone forever, as were the enlistments by yeoman farmers and men of “the middling sort” who had manned the barricase during the Boston siege. Their place in the ranks of the Continental army were now filled by indentured servants, former slaves, landless sons, and recent immigrants from Ireland and England. These were the young men, usually between fifteen and twenty-five years of age, who lived in the makeshift log huts at Valley Forge and singed on “for the duration” of the war because, in most cases. they had no brighter prospects.”

~Jospeh J. Ellis, His Excellence: George Washinton, page 113″

 

 

The American Revolutionary War

The American Revolutionary War

 President George Washington – The Greatest Man in the World

 

The Battle of Trenton

Favorite part of The Crossing

John Adams – President Washington – VP John Adams

Alexander Hamilton on a National Bank

The Founders and Us

 

Joseph Ellis on Exporting Democracy

An excellent biography of George Washington is Ellis’ His Excellency: George Washington with extensive notes for further readings on Washington, the Founding Fathers and the American Revolutionary War.

“…Unlike Julius Casear and Oliver Cromwell before him, and Napoleaon, Lenin, and Mao after him, he understood that the greater glory resided in posterity’s judgment. If you aspire to live forever in the memory of future generations, you must demostrate the ultimate self-confidence to leave the final judgement to them. And he did.” 

~Jospeh J. Ellis, His Excellence: George Washinton, page 275″ 

“The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon”

 ~George Washinton

Background Articles and Videos

BOOKS OF THE TIMES; Washington Minus the Myth: Ubiquitous but Remote

By MICHIKO KAKUTANI

Published: October 26, 2004

“…Mr. Ellis concludes that for Washington, ”the American Revolution was not about destroying political power, as it was for Jefferson, but rather seizing it and using it wisely.” His life, in the end, ”was all about power: facing it, taming it, channeling it, projecting it.” This assessment places Washington in the forefront of the realistic tradition in American public policy; he believed that nations would always behave solely on the basis of self-interest and that ideals on their own must never define a government’s or military’s agenda.

Such arguments are not exactly new but grow out of other biographers’ and scholars’ writings. Unlike Mr. Ellis’s book on Adams, which did much to resurrect that founding father’s reputation, this volume does not break much new ground, but it nonetheless provides a lucid, often shrewd take on the man Mr. Ellis calls the ”primus inter pares, the Foundingest Father of them all.” And it does so with admirable grace and wit.”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C05E6DC173DF935A15753C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

 The Human Washington

By FORREST MCDONALD

“…IN a historical profession that is scornful of what it calls dead white males, Joseph J. Ellis has emerged as an eloquent champion and brilliant practitioner of the old-fashioned art of biography. He concentrates mainly upon the founders of the American republic, and while those who have particular favorites among the founders may cavil at his interpretations, Ellis has a gift for getting inside the skins of his subjects and showing what made them tick.

Now he has taken on the greatest and most enigmatic founder. To describe George Washington as enigmatic may strike some as strange, for every young student knows about him (or did when students could be counted on to know anything). He was born into a minor family in Virginia’s plantation gentry, worked as a surveyor in the West as a young man, was a hero of sorts during the French and Indian War, became an extremely wealthy planter (after marrying a rich widow), served as commander in chief of the Continental Army throughout the Revolutionary War (including the terrible winter at Valley Forge), defeated the British at the Battle of Yorktown, suppressed a threatened mutiny by his officers at Newburgh, N.Y., then astonished the world and won its applause by laying down his sword in 1783. Called out of retirement, he presided over the Constitutional Convention of 1787, reluctantly accepted the presidency in 1789 and served for two terms, thus assuring the success of the American experiment in self-government.

But as Ellis puts it, though Washington is ”an inescapable presence that hovered all around,” he ”remained a mysterious abstraction . . . like one of those Jeffersonian truths, self-evident and simply there . . . that no one needed to talk about.” He is ”always an icon — distant, cold, intimidating.” …”

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E3D6123DF934A35752C1A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Joseph John Ellis

“…Joseph John Ellis (born 1943) is a Professor of History at Mount Holyoke College who has written influential and award-winning histories on the founding generation of American presidents. His book Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (2000) received the Pulitzer Prize for History in 2001.

He received his B.A. from the College of William and Mary, where he was initiated into Theta Delta Chi. He earned his M.A. and Ph.D. from Yale University in 1969. He served in the United States Army and also taught at West Point until 1972.

That year Ellis joined the faculty at Mount Holyoke College. He is the former dean of faculty at Mount Holyoke and also served as Acting President for part of 1984 while President Elizabeth Topham Kennan was on leave.

Jefferson and Hemings

Main article: American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson

Ellis in his book American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson suggested that evidence for an affair between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was “inconclusive”.[1] Specifically, Ellis states in the appendix to American Sphinx,

Unless the trustees of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation decide to exhume the remains and do DNA testing on Jefferson as well as some of his alleged progeny, it leaves the matter a mystery about which advocates on either side can freely speculate… This means that for those who demand an answer the only recourse is plausible conjecture, prefaced as it must be with profuse statements about the flimsy and wholly circumstantial character of the evidence. In that spirit, which we might call the spirit of responsible speculation, after five years mulling over the huge cache of evidence that does exist on the thought and character of the historical Jefferson, I have concluded that the likelihood of a liaison with Sally Hemings is remote.[2]

On November 5, 1998, Dr. Eugene Foster published an article, “Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child”, in the weekly journal Nature. Foster reported that DNA testing proved that a male from the Thomas Jefferson line was the father of Sally Hemings’s son Eston. Given that, he believed that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston and probably Hemings’ other children.[3]

On November 2, 1998, The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer featured this topic and stated, “According to an article in an upcoming issue of the journal Nature, DNA analysis shows that Jefferson almost certainly fathered at least one of Sally Hemings’ children, her last son, Eston.”[4] Ellis, who was interviewed during this broadcast, stated that he had revised his opinion due to this new evidence:

It’s not so much a change of heart, but this is really new evidence. And it—prior to this evidence, I think it was a very difficult case to know and circumstantial on both sides, and, in part, because I got it wrong, I think I want to step forward and say this new evidence constitutes, well, evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that Jefferson had a longstanding sexual relationship with Sally Hemings.[5]  …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Ellis

His Excellency: George Washington

“…His Excellency: George Washington is a 2004 biography of the first President of the United States, General George Washington. It is written by Joseph Ellis, a professor of History at Mount Holyoke College.

Through examination of the George Washington Papers, among other sources, Ellis indicates that his purpose in writing the text was to explore Washington’s periods in order to offer a profile of the man “first in War, first in Peace, and first in the hearts of his countrymen.” Indeed Ellis states that his goal in writing His Excellency was to produce a work that examined not George Washington’s life, but his personality and how his life shaped it.[1]

 Events and themes

In the text, Ellis focuses on three main areas of Washington’s life:

  • his military adventures during the French and Indian War
  • his generalship in the American Revolution
  • his time as the first President of the United States.

According to Ellis, Washington was always searching for a means to control his inner passions and his destiny. He fumed under the control that the British held over him during the Colonial America period. In particular, he was frustrated by the lack of respect offered for his military achievements to granting land claim rights in the west. As a general, he bemoaned the lack of control the fledgling Continental Congress had over the colonies which composed it (later as President, he created acts to ensure control of the federal government over the states).

As a man forced to make his own destiny, the theme of control would become a central issue for him. This was particularly true in the case of his beloved Mount Vernon.

 Chapters

  • Preface: The Man In The Moon
  • Chapter One: Interior Regions
  • Chapter Two: The Strenuous Squire
  • Chapter Three: First In War
  • Chapter Four: Destiny’s Child
  • Chapter Five: Introspective Interlude
  • Chapter Six: First In Peace
  • Chapter Seven: Testament

 Reviews

Gordon S. Wood of The New Republic commented that, “Everyone keeps wondering why over the past decade or so there have been so many books on the Founders, that remarkable generation of men who led the American Revolution and framed the Constitution. Joseph J. Ellis is surely one of the explanations: he has been a one-man historical machine…Ellis has entered the ranks of that tiny group of popular historians, including David McCullough, Walter Isaacson, and Ron Chernow, who sell copies of their books in the tens and even hundreds of thousands.” [2] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/His_Excellency:_George_Washington

How the founders differed from the English Bill of Rights

Why the US Rebelled Against England

Book Haul?

Jefferson’s best moments from John Adams

The Patriot – Battle of Guilford Courthouse

War and History, Ancient and Modern

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Philip Bobbitt–Terror and Consent–Videos

Patrick J. Buchanan–Churchill, Hitler, and The Unnecessary War–Videos

Milton Friedman–Free To Choose–On Donahue –Videos

Jonah Goldberg–Liberal Fascism–Videos

Peter Huber–The Bottomless Well–Videos

Donald Kagan–On The Origins Of War–Videos

George Lakoff–Videos

Mark Levin–Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto–Videos

Andrew C. McCarthy–Willful Blindness–Videos

Ayn Rand–Videos

The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged and The Ideas of Ayn Rand

Yaron Brook On Capitalism and Atlas Shrugged–Videos

John Stossel On Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged

Daniel Suarez–Daemon and Freedom TM–Videos

Peter Robinson–Conversations With Authors–Videos

Murry Rothbard–For A New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto–Audio Book

Murray Rothbard– What Has Government Done to Our Money?–Videos

Amity Shlaes–The Forgotten Man–Videos

Thomas Sowell and Conflict of Visions–Videos

Thomas Sowell On The Housing Boom and Bust–Videos

Marc Thiessen’s Courting Disaster–A Clear and Present Danger To The American People–President Barack Obama

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Glenn Beck Compares and Contrasts–Progressive Radical Socialism–Under Chavez and Obama–Little Difference

Posted on January 26, 2010. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, history, Law, liberty, Life, Links, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Security, Taxes, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , |

Chavez Silences Opposition

Glenn Beck Show – January 26, 2010 – Pt 1 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 26, 2010 – Pt 2 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 26, 2010 – Pt 3 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 26, 2010 – Pt 4 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 26, 2010 – Pt 5 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 26, 2010 – Pt 6 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 26, 2010 – Pt 7 of 8

Glenn Beck Show – January 26, 2010 – Pt 8 of 8

Obama’s Czar Mark Lloyd’s FCC ‘Diversity’ Chief – His Take on Free Speech

  

Background Articles and Videos

Venezuelan Dictator Hugo Chavez

  

ABC television interview with Hugo Chavez

Obama’s FCC Diversity Czar Loves Hugo Chavez’s Revolution – Czar Mark Lloyd – Glenn Beck

Obama Promises Promises,Words Just Words,Still Blaming Bush

Broadcast Blues: Mark Lloyd and the Structural Imbalance of Talk Radio

FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd discussing plans to shut down conservative media 

 

MICHAEL SAVAGE ATTACKS MARK LLOYD FASCIST FCC CZAR OF OBAMA ADMINISTRATION

  

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Progressive Radical Socialist Obama:The Anti-Business–Job and Wealth Destroying–Government Interventionist–Demands More Regulations, Taxes, Subsidies, Government Spending, Deficits and Debt–Stop Them Now–Do Not Play Their Game!

Glenn Beck’s Documentary On The Collectivists: Marxists, Socialists, Progressives, Communists, Fascists, National Socialists–Progressive Radical Socialists of The Democratic and Republican Parties!

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar, and Cass Sustein, Regulatory Czar: Progressive Radical Socialist Silencing of Free Speech On Internet Blogs and Talk Radio

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Value of Real Heroes and Truth, Justice and The American Way

Posted on December 22, 2009. Filed under: Art, Blogroll, Books, Communications, Culture, liberty, Life, People, Philosophy, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , |

 The Wind Beneath My Wings: Bette Midler Live in 2008

 

Glenn Beck-12-21-09-A

Glenn Beck-12-21-09-B

Glenn Beck-12-21-09-C

Glenn Beck-12-21-09-D

Glenn Beck-12-21-09-E

Glenn Beck-12-21-09-F

I have few real heroes.

A real hero to me is George C. Marshall.

Very few young people today know who he was and what he did.

You can find out more about George C. Marshall here:

George C. Marshall–An American Hero and Leader

Beaches – Wind Beneath My Wings

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

The Progressive Radical Socialist Revolutionaries Attack On Freedom of Speech and Free Enterprise–Whose Side Are You On?

Posted on October 29, 2009. Filed under: Blogroll, Communications, Cult, Culture, Demographics, Economics, Education, Employment, Entertainment, Fiscal Policy, government spending, Investments, Language, Law, liberty, Life, Links, media, People, Philosophy, Politics, Quotations, Rants, Raves, Regulations, Resources, Security, Taxes, Technology, Video, Wisdom | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“Perhaps the fact that we have seen millions voting themselves into complete dependence on a tyrant has made our generation understand that to choose one’s government is not necessarily to secure freedom.”

“I am certain nothing has done so much to destroy the juridical safeguards of individual freedom as the striving after the mirage of social justice. “

~Friedrich A. Hayek

 

General George Washington

 

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-A

 

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-B

 

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-C

 

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-D

 

Glenn Beck-10-29-09-E

 

The Ascent of Man – 8: The Drive for Power 1/5

 

The Ascent of Man – 8: The Drive for Power 2/5

 

The Ascent of Man – 8: The Drive for Power 3/5

 

The Ascent of Man – 8: The Drive for Power 4/5

 

The Ascent of Man – 8: The Drive for Power 5/5

 

 

“All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.”

“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not. “

~Thomas Jefferson

 

George Washington takes the Oath of Office (Inauguration)

 

Background Articles and Videos

 

Charles Freaking Krauthammer OBLITERATES Barack Obama’s War on FOX News — WOW!!!

 

FOX News Panel — Barack Obama’s War On FOX News Rebuffed by Courageous Press

 

Progressivism

“…Progressivism is a political and social term for ideologies and movements favoring or advocating changes or reform, usually in an egalitarian direction for economic policies (public management) and liberal direction for social policies (personal choice). Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative ideologies.

In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them. Political parties, such as the Progressive Party, organized at the start of the 20th century, and progressivism made great strides under American presidents Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson.[1]

Despite being associated with left-wing politics, the term “progressive” has also been used by groups not particularly left-wing. The Progressive Democrats in the Republic of Ireland took the name “progressivism” despite being considered centre-right, or classical liberal. The European Progressive Democrats was a mainly heterogeneous political group in the European Union. For most of the period from 1942-2003, the largest conservative party in Canada was the Progressive Conservative Party.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism

 

Progressive Era

“…The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of reform which lasted from the 1890s to the 1920s.[1]

Responding to the changes brought about by industrialization, [2] the Progressives advocated a wide range of economic, political, social, and moral reforms.[3] Initially the movement was successful at local levels, and then it progressed to state and gradually national. Both the reformers and their opponents were predominantly members of the middle class.

In the Gilded Age (late 19th century) the parties were reluctant to involve the federal government too heavily in the private sector, except in the area of railroads and tariffs. In general, they accepted the concept of laissez-faire, a doctrine opposing government interference in the economy except to maintain law and order. This attitude started to change during the depression of the 1890s when small business, farm, and labor movements began asking the government to intercede on their behalf.[8]

By the turn of the century, a middle class had developed that was leery of both the business elite and the radical political movements of farmers and laborers in the Midwest and West. Known as Progressives, these people favored government regulation of business practices to, in their minds, ensure competition and free enterprise. Congress enacted a law regulating railroads in 1887 (the Interstate Commerce Act), and one preventing large firms from controlling a single industry in 1890 (the Sherman Antitrust Act). These laws were not rigorously enforced, however, until the years between 1900 and 1920, when Republican President Theodore Roosevelt (1901–1909), Democratic President Woodrow Wilson (1913–1921), and others sympathetic to the views of the Progressives came to power. Many of today’s U.S. regulatory agencies were created during these years, including the Interstate Commerce Commission and the Federal Trade Commission. Muckrakers were journalists who encouraged readers to demand more regulation of business. Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle (1906) showed America the horrors of the Chicago Union Stock Yards, a giant complex of meat processing that developed in the 1870s. The federal government responded to Sinclair’s book with the new regulatory Food and Drug Administration. Ida M. Tarbell wrote a series of articles against the Standard Oil monopoly. This affected both the government and the public reformers. The series helped pave the way for the breakup of the monopoly.[9]

When Democrat Woodrow Wilson was elected President with a Democratic Congress in 1912 he implemented a series of progressive policies. In 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment was ratified, and the income tax was instituted in the United States. Wilson resolved the longstanding debates over tariffs and antitrust, and created the Federal Reserve, a complex business-government partnership that to this day dominates the financial world.

In 1913, Henry Ford, adopted the moving assembly line, with each worker doing one simple task in the production of automobiles. Taking his cue from developments during the progressive era, Ford offered a very generous wage—$5 a day—to his workers, arguing that a mass production enterprise could not survive if average workers could not buy the goods. However, the wage increase did not extend to women, and Ford expanded the company’s Sociological Department to monitor his workers and ensure that they did not spend their new found bounty on “vice and cheap thrills.”[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era

 

Obama: We are 5 days from FUNDAMENTALly transforming America

 

Mark Lloyd on the Future of Media from 2005

 

FCC Diversity Czar Mark Lloyd discussing plans to shut down conservative media

 

Obama’s Czar Mark Lloyd’s FCC ‘Diversity’ Chief – His Take on Free Speech

 

The Power of Progress – John Podesta – HIGHLIGHTS

 

Lawrence Summers on Economic Crisis & Conservative Ideology

 

Support for OBAMA is PERSONAL

 

Obama Youth? Socialism? Truth Squad?

 

Buffy Wicks Introduces USAservice.org

 

glenn beck NEA links to Valerie Jarrett or whitehouse

 

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda 1/4

 

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda 2/4

 

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda 3/4

 

EXPLOSIVE NEW AUDIO Reveals White House Using NEA to Push Partisan Agenda 4/4

 

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Cass Sunstein–Regulatory Czar–Animal Rights Activist, Body Part Taker, Gun Grabber, Internet Regulator, Nudger–Nuts!

Mark Lloyd, FCC Diversity Czar, and Cass Sustein, Regulatory Czar: Progressive Radical Socialist Silencing of Free Speech On Internet Blogs and Talk Radio

Network Neurtrality–FCC Julius Genachowski–Tim Wu–Free and Open Internet Or Slow and Stupid Internet?

Robert W. McChesney–Videos

Tim Wu–Videos

President Obama Lies Again On Sunday Shows–Breaks No New Tax Promise–Compulsory Health Insurance Is A Tax Increase–Cut The Weasel Words Mr. President!

Obama’s Mao Mao Mopsters Red Bucket Brigade aka Red Guards Spreading the Wealth Around

Obama’s Socialist Mopster Red Bucket Brigade for The Rockefeller and Soros Agenda of World Socialist Government–A New World Order!

Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Democratic Party’s Propaganda War On Freedom of Speech

Anita Dunn–White House Communications Director–Exposed By Beck As Mao Tse-Tung Admirer On Video!

Fox’s Glenn Beck Installs Hotline to Narcissist Obama–Beck Continues To Be Obama’s Narcissistic Supplier!

Fox News Scares Narcissist Obama–Mirror Mirror Mirror On The Wall Who Is The Fairest Of Them All–Sarah Palin–Obama Attacks Mirror!

Sam Vaknin–Videos

Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD)–Videos

Barack Obama Cult?

Jim Jones–Cult of Personality–The Tragedy of Jonestown–Videos

There Are No Coincidences: Three Progressive Presidents Won The Nobel Peace Prize–Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Barack Obama–Narcissistic Personality Disorder!

2009 Nobel Peace Prize For Being America’s Affirmative Action Apologist and Political Payoff President Barack Obama

The Obama Depression Continues–Official Unemployment Hits Rate 9.8% (15,142,000 Seek Full Time Job) and Real Unemployment Rate Hits 17.0% (26,181,000 Seek Full Time Job)!

Guns and Butter–War and Peace–Victory or Defeat–Commander-in-Chief or Cheer Leader?

“We Can Reverse Climate Change”–President Barack Obama–Liar or Fool–Or Both–You Be The Judge!

Obama–Corruption Kingpin–Campaign Contributions and Support for Government Payoffs and Subsidies–Stealing From The American People To Payoff Obama’s Pals

Hype: The Obama Effect–Videos

Crime–Corruption–Organized Crime–ACORN–Taxes–Obama Connected And Trained

The Arrogance of President Obama: Hectoring Habitual Liar

Broom Budget Busting Bums: Replace The Entire Congress–Tea Party Express and Patriots–United We Stand!

Obama’s Civilian National Security Force–Youth Corp Wave–Friendly Fascism Faces–Cons–Crooks–Communists–Communities–Corps!

Obama’s Hidden Agenda and Covert Cadre of Marxists, Communists, Progressives, Radicals, Socialists–Far Left Democrats Destroying Capitalism and The American Republic

Apollo Alliance and Obama’s Green Czar Van Jones: Greens on The Outside–Reds On The Inside–Big Greens, Big Unions, Big Foundations, Big Business, Big Bucks, Big Taxes–Videos

Public Option = Government Option = Pathway to Single Payer = Single Payer = Socialized Medicine = Blue Pill = Poison Pill

Change You Can Count On: The 2,000,000,000 Health Care Plan Requires Massive Tax Increases and Huge Cuts In Medicare Reimbursement for Doctors and Hospitals!

Beck and Hannity Expose Corrupt Ethics Waived Slumlord Valerie Jarrett–Senior Advisor, Olympics Czar and Close Friend of President Barack Obama–Videos

The Battle For The World Economy–Videos

President Obama–Killer of The American Dream and Market Capitalism–Stop The Radical Socialists Before They Kill You!

Cloward Piven Strategy–The Crisis Strategy Of Barack Obama

Yuri Bezmenov On KGB Soviet Propaganda and Subversion–Videos 

President Barack Obama Puppet of Trilateral Commission?–Videos

G. William Domhoff: Who Runs America–Videos

Eugenics–Rockefeller–United Nations–Population Control–Holdren–Abortions/Sterilization–Browner–Cap and Trade–Obama–Compulsory Socialized Medicine–Euthanasia–Transhuman–Brave New World!–Videos 

Eugenics, Planned Parenthood, Population Control, and Designer Babies–Videos

Barrack Obama’s Kansas Values–Killing Babies in Cold Blood?

Black Genocide–Eugenics–Planned Parenthood–Population Control–Videos

George Soros: Barack Obama’s Money Man and Agenda Puppeter

George Soros: Government Interventionist and Global Socialist–Obama’s Puppeter Master–Videos

Soros Funded and Obama’s Manufactured Hate Generator–The Southern Poverty Law Center–Disinformation Propaganda Campaign 

Change You Can Count On: The $2,000,000,000 Health Care Plan Requires Massive Tax Increases and Huge Cuts In Medicare Reimbursement for Doctors and Hospitals!

Second Opinion: Doctors Speak Up On Proposed Health Care Reform–And A Third Texas Opinion!–Videos

Republican Health Care Reform: The Patients’ Choice Act

Medical Doctor and Senator Tom Coburn On Health Care–Videos

The Senate Doctors Show–Videos

Obama’s Waterloo– Government Compulsory Single Payer Socialized Medicine!–Videos

President Obama’s Plan of Massive Deficit Spending Is Destroying The US Economy–The American People Say Stop Socialism BS Now!

The Bum’s Rush of The American People: The Totally Irresponsible Democratic Party Health Care Bill and Obama’s Big Lie Exposed

Chairman Obama’s Progressive Radical Socialist Health Care Bill Kills Individual Private Health Care Insurance–Join The Second American Revolution!

The Obama Big Lie and Inconvenient Truth About Health Care–The Public Option Trojan Horse–Leads To A Single Payor Goverment Monopoly of Health Care and The Bankruptcy of USA!

The Obama Public Option Poison Pill For A Government Health Care Monopoly–Single Payer System–Betting Your Life and Paying Though The Nose

Government Bureaucracy: Organizational Chart of The House Democrats’ Health Plan

Dr. Robert W. Christensen–Videos

John Stossel–Sick In America–Videos

Down and Dirty Democrat Clinton vs. Up and Clean Democrat Obama: Hard Ball Time!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...